Case Name: Charles H. Druckenmiller, App'lt, v. Bernard J. Shoninger et al., Resp'ts
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-03
Citations: 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 142
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles H. Druckenmiller, App’lt, v. Bernard J. Shoninger et al., Resp’ts.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 29
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
Charles H. Druckenmiller, App’lt, v. Bernard J. Shoninger et al., Resp’ts.
(New York Common Pleas, General Term,
Filed February 3, 1890.)
1. Jurisdiction—Actions commenced in district court.
If a plaintiff elect to sue mi district court he must he limited as to the amount of his recovery hy the special jurisdiction conferred upon such court, although the case is removed to a court of record.
2. Same.
Plaintiff brought action in a district court, which was removed to the common pleas. He then hied a complaint demanding judgment for $700. Defendants set up want of jurisdiction. Held, that a demurrer to this defense was properly overruled.
Appeal from order overruling plaintiff’s demurrer to the first defense in the answer.
This action was originally brought in a district court, and waS afterwards removed to this court. Plaintiff then served a complaint demanding judgment for $700.
The first defense in the answer set up want of jurisdiction on the ground that the action was originally brought in a district court and that a district court had no jurisdiction of an action for that amount.
John Fennel, for app’lt; John B. Green, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Larremore, Ch. J.
The order made by Judge Allen, overruling plaintiff's demurrer to the first defense pleaded in the answer, must be affirmed on the authority of Smith v. White, 23 N. Y., 572; Salter v. Parkhurst, 2 Daly, 240; Lougrill v. Downey, 7 N. Y. Supplement, 503; 27 N. Y. State Rep., 51.
These cases were evidently considered by Judge Allen when he made such order, and they undoubtedly establish the principle that when an action is originally brought in a district court its permanent character must be determined by the declaration and the amount sued for in such court, though subsequently it be removed to this court. •
•It might be said that no meritorious objection could be made to. plaintiff's serving a written complaint after removal to this court, demanding damages for a sum in excess of the amount the district courts could entertain jurisdiction for. But such practice would unsettle all orderly methods of procedure. If a plaintiff has a claim in excess of the amount the statute allows-to be sued for in a district court, he may, of course, bring his action in the first instance in a court of record. But if he elect, to sue in a district court, he must be limited as to the amount of his recovery by the special jurisdiction conferred upon, such court. The action is in all essential respects the same after removal as before.
The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs
Bischoff, J., concurs.