Case Name: John Ford, Individually and as Justice of the Supreme Court, Appellant, v. John P. Clarke et al., as a Board or Body Exercising the Power to Assign Justices to Hold Terms of the Supreme Court, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-07-13
Citations: 236 N.Y. 606
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Ford, Individually and as Justice of the Supreme Court, Appellant, v. John P. Clarke et al., as a Board or Body Exercising the Power to Assign Justices to Hold Terms of the Supreme Court, Respondents.
Judges: Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ,
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 606–606

Head Matter:
John Ford, Individually and as Justice of the Supreme Court, Appellant, v. John P. Clarke et al., as a Board or Body Exercising the Power to Assign Justices to Hold Terms of the Supreme Court, Respondents.
Jurisdiction — courts — action by justice of Supreme Court to compel justices of Appellate Division to assign plaintiff to hold certain terms of court — demurrer on ground court had no jurisdiction sustained.
Ford v. Clarke, 204 App. Div. 5, affirmed.
(Argued June 5, 1923;
decided July 13, 1923.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 28, 1922, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon an order of ■ Special Term granting a motion by defendants for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff, a justice of the Supreme Court in the first judicial district, brought the action against the defendants, the justices of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court for the first judicial department, seeking a judgment that the defendants be directed “ in making assignments of justices of the Supreme Court to do so in such manner as will afford plaintiff opportunity to perform all the functions of his office by doing his fair share of all the work of the Supreme Court,” and that defendants be enjoined from discriminating against the plaintiff. The defendants demurred on the ground that the court had not jurisdiction of the subject of the action and that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and both parties moved for judgment. The court denied the motion of plaintiff and granted that of the defendants, and judgment dismissing the complaint was thereupon entered.
Challes A. Collin and Joseph N. Tuttle for appellant.
Elihu Root, Grenville Clark and Cloyd Laporte for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ,