Year: 1874

An important case-that OF Lewis Alexander.
plaintiff and respondent vs. Jacob Bennett, de-
iendant and appellant-was yesterday argue ed IN
the Superior Court. General Term. The suit was
originally brought by Bennett against Alexander
in the Superior Court which under the amehued
act of 1874 was transferred for trial 10 the Marine
Court The plaintiff in the original action insti-
tuted in the Superior Court demurred TO the
transfer, claiming that in case OF an appeal such
appeal would rest finally With the General Term OF
the Common Pleas at the discretion OF said Court,
cutting OF all resort to the Court OF Appeals. On
motion the case was act down for argument yes
terday, when Mr. Agernon s. sullivan ap-
peared for the defendant and appellant. In
fendant contended against the constitution
allty OF the act providing lor the tranSerence
Court Section tour OF the act provides:-"Any
other Court OF Record may, in its discretion. by an
order to be entered on Its minutes after the join
ing OF issue, send any action pending therein or
that may hereafter be brought therein, to the said
Marine Court Tor trial; and certified copy OF such
OF said Marine Court ana be entered by him on Its
minutes and, tnereupon, the said Marine Court
such action, full and comprehensive In that par
ticular as that OF the court from whence the same
proceeds" Counsel ior defendant claimed that the
act was Unconstitutional to this extent and, fur-
ther, that the ST. perior Court OF the city oil New
York (the Court OF Common Pleas and Two
other local courtsl are continued with The
powers they then had in the State constitution OF
is70. The language OF section II, OF article 9, or
that constitution Is that such courts ''are con-
tinued with the powers and jurisdiction they now
severay have, and sucn further civil and Criminal
Jurisdiction as NAV be conferred BY law"


II this language means anything 1t means that so
long this constitutional denomination oil this
Court stands, that It's jurisdiction shall remain
unabridged and the Legislature mas no right 10
abrldge 1t. The mode OF appeal before the c0nsti-
tuition of 1870 was I1us An appeal from an order
made az Special Term would, IN certain cases (of
which this Is one), lie to the General Term OF
this Court. BY the constitution OF 1870, there
fore, this method OF practice was confirmed
viz, that all appeals should be from the Special
Term OF this Court TO The General Term, and
section 34S) Chapter 545 then abrldges this right
OF appeal to the General Term OF this Court which
right was liked by the service OF summons and
appearance In this Court The appellant insists
that the suitor cannot be deprived OF such right
without his consent IN the absence OF q constitu-
tonal amendment. II the case at bar Is sent TO
the Marine Court 1t becomes discretionary In the
General Term ol the Court OF Common Pleas, as TO
the right OF appeal to The Court OF Appeals from
judgment or such Court. And yet Judgment In
the Marine Court IN this cause would be Judg-
ment IN suit over which this Court alone mas ex-
elusive and entire jurisdiction. Alter process has
been served III this Court the Legislature mas no
power to pass statute abridglng the jurisdiction
OF this Court to the prejudice OF suttors summoned
tend this Courts jurisdiction but cannot deprive
suitors OF the right TO travel directly TO the Court
OF Appeals-accordIng to tue way pointed out py
law prior to the consti tuition of 1870, and con-
nrmed by such constitution. Chapter 545 does de-
prive sutors OF such right and. therefore, abrldges
the Jurisdiction OF this Court, and is in this re-
spect unconstitutional. An Interpretation OF
chapter 545, which permits the Common Peas 10
determine the propriety OF appeals in cases begun
in the Superior Court Is great Injustice TO sultors
The order appealed nom should be reversed and
this case retained IN this Court for trial thereof
And the appellant have his costs OIL this appeal


The C0urt reserved its decision.