Case Name: DE BEVOISE v. INGALLS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-06-14
Citations: 34 N.Y.S. 413
Docket Number: 
Parties: DE BEVOISE v. INGALLS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 34
Pages: 413–414

Head Matter:
(88 Hun, 186.)
DE BEVOISE v. INGALLS et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
June 14, 1895.)
Appeal—New Trial in County Court.
Under Code Civ. Proc. § 3064, authorizing the county court to grant a new trial on appeal from a judgment by default rendered by a justice, where appellant renders a satisfactory excuse for his default, a new trial cannot be granted unless an excuse is given by appellant for not appearing before the justice. Pratt, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Rockland county court.
Action by William De Bevoise against William Ingalls and others. From a judgment directing a new trial in the justice court, defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Argued before BROWN, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
George A. Wyre, for appellants.
A. S. Tompkins, for respondent.

Opinion:
BROWN, P. J.
The appeal from the justice's judgment was heard by the county court upon the justice's return. The court had power to reverse the judgment, but no power to direct a new trial. Section 3064 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to the facts of the case. That section empowers the county court to direct a new trial only when the appellant "renders a satisfactory excuse for his default." No affidavits were read on the argument of the appeal, and no excuse was shown why the appellants did not appear before the justice of the peace. The county court is a tribunal of limited jurisdiction, and can exercise, on appeal, only such powers as are conferred upon it by statute. It was error, therefore, for the court to order a new trial, and the part of the judgment appealed from must be reversed, with costs.
DYICMAN, J., concurs.