Case Name: SOLOMON v. BENNETT
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06-07
Citations: 70 N.Y.S. 856
Docket Number: 
Parties: SOLOMON v. BENNETT.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 70
Pages: 856–861

Head Matter:
SOLOMON v. BENNETT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 7, 1901.)
Action for Libel—Statute of Limitations—Dismissal of Action.
Const. 1846, art. 6, § 24, provides that the legislature shall provide for the appointment of commissioners to revise rules of practice and pleading for the courts of record of the state. Code Oiv. Proc. § 384, provides that an action for libel shall be barred unless brought within two years, from the publication of the libel; and section 405 declares that if an action is commenced within the time limited therefor, and the action is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance or a dismissal or a final judgment on the merits, plaintiff may commence a new action. Held, that where an alleged libelous article was published in October, 1896, an action commenced therefor in April, 1899, was barred, notwithstanding that an action filed in June, 1898. in the United States circuit court to recover damages for the same libel had been dismissed for want of jurisdiction, since under the constitution the legislature had power to prescribe rules only for the courts of the state, and hence the Code relates only to such courts.
Ingraham and Hatch, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from trial term, New York county.
Action by Alexander Jacob Solomon against James Gordon Bennett. From a judgment in favor of defendant, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Beversed.
Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and HATCH, McLAUGHLIN, PATTERSON, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
R. W. Chandler, for appellant.
William McArthur, for respondent.

Opinion:
McLAUGHLIN, J.
The action was brought to recover damages for an alleged libel upon the plaintiff published in a newspaper belonging to the defendant. The alleged libelous article appeared in the newspaper on the 12th of October, 1896. This action was commenced on the 22d day of April, 1899. It was barred by the two-years statute of' limitations (section 384, Code Civ. Proc.), unless that bar is removed by the fact that in June, 1898, the plaintiff brought an action in the United States circuit court to recover damages for the same libel, which action was dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. It is provided in the Code of Civil Procedure of the state of New York (section 405) that if an action is commenced within the time limited therefor, and a judgment therein is reversed on appeal without awarding a new trial, or the action is terminated in any other manner than by a voluntary discontinuance, a dismissal of the complaint for neglect to prosecute the same, or a final judgment upon the merits, the plaintiff may commence a new action for the same cause after the expiration of the time so limited, and within one year after such reversal or termination. The question arising on this appeal is whether the provisions of this section may be invoked by the plaintiff to preserve from the operation of the statute of limitations the cause of action set forth in the complaint herein. I am of the opinion that the section has no application to an action brought elsewhere than in a court' of record of the state of New7 York. The statute of limitations of the state of New York is contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, which is a code of practice having no relation to any other tribunals than those of the state of New York. That Code is a substitute for the Code of Procedure which was enacted by the legislature of the state of New York as a code of practice pursuant to the twenty-fourth section of article 6 of the constitution of 1846, which provided that the legislature at its first session after the adoption of that constitution should provide for the appointment of commissioners to revise, reform, simplify, and abridge the rules of practice and pleadings, forms, and proceedings of the courts of record of this state, and to report thereon, subject to their adoption and modification by the legislature from time to time. It could not have been within the contemplation of the framers of that constitutional provision to furnish rules of practice or procedure for the courts of the United States located within the territory of the state of New York, and "a state law prescribing rules of practice has no efficacy proprio vigore in the courts of the United States." Mayor v. Lord, 9 Wall. 413, 19 L. Ed. 704. If the courts of the United States see fit, either by the adoption of rules, or under acts of the congress assimilating federal practice to state practice, to adopt the latter, that does not change the inherent nature of the state-legislation, or widen the interpretation and effect to be given to that legislation. Section l of the Code of Civil Procedure, naming the courts of record of the state, gives an exclusive enumeration of the tribunals in which the provisions of the Code are to be applied. The legislature had no power to prescribe by a code of practice or procedure rules for any other tribunals; for by the constitution of 1846, as we have seen, the power is expressly' declared to relate only to the courts of record of this state, and, in the nature of things,, it could relate to nothing but state courts.
For these reasons, the judgment and order appealed from should' be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to-abide the event.
VAN BRUNT, P. J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.