« PředchozíPokračovat »
dall, ib. 127; 2 Code R. 70; Truscott v. King, 4 How. 173; Thompson v. Blanchard, id. 260; Doty v. Brown, id. 429. See, however, Kanouse v. Martin, 2 Sand.
3 Code R. 203 ; and $ 459, post.) Q. All the provisions of the code apply to all recognizances forfeited in any court of general sessions, or oyer and terminer within the State. (Laws 1855, p. 305, ch. 2, 8. 1.)
6. There is no longer any appeal to the superior court. (See Wood v. Kelly, 2 Hilton, 336; Hawkins v. Mayor of N. Y., 5 Abb. 344.)
OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE AND THEIR JURISDICTION.
TITLE L. OF THE COURTS IN GENERAL.
II. OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
OYER AND TERMINER.
CITY OF NEW YORK, AND THE MAYORS' AND RECORDER'S
COURTS IN OTHER CITIES.
Of the Courts in general.
SECTION 9. The several courts of this state.
10. Their jurisdiction generally.
$ 9. [9.] (Am'd 1849.) The several courts.
1. The court for trial of impeachments.
New York. 13. The mayors' courts of cities.
14. The recorders' courts of cities. 15. The marine court of the city of New York. 16. The justices' (district] courts in the city of New York. 17. The justices' courts of cities. 18. The police courts.
a. This enumeration is far from complete; at least, it omits the City Court of Brooklyn, and the Superior Court of the city of Buffalo.
$ 10. (10.] Their jurisdiction generally.
These courts shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction now vested in them respectively, except as otherwise prescribed by this act.
6. If two actions between the same parties, and upon the same subject matter, are brought in two different courts, the court which first acquires jurisdiction should dispose of the whole controversy (McCarthy v. Peake, 9 Abb. 164).
c. THE COURTS HAVE JURISDICTION
Of an action for an assault committed in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, although the State has ceded exclusive jurisdiction of that place to the United States (Culver, City Judge, Armstrong v. Foote, 11 Abb. 384 overruling 19 How. 237).
Foreign governments may sue and be sued in the courts of this State in their federative name (Republic of Mexico v. Arrangois, 11 How. 1 ; 2 Abb. 437; 3 id. 470; Manning v. State of Nicaragua, 14 How. 517; Delafield v. State of Illinois, 26 Wend. 192; Burrall v. Jewett, 2 Paige, 134; Gibson v. Woodworth, 8 id. 132).
Although a State of the United States has adopted an ordinance of secession, it may nevertheless sue in the courts of this state (U. S. v. Vietor, 16 Abb. 153).
The United States or a State may consent to be sued in a state court (The People of Michigan v. Phænir Bank, 4 Bosw. 382).
Of actions against foreign executors or administrators who are residents of the State. (Gulick v. Gulick, 33 Barb. 92, 21 How. 22 ; Moutaldan v. Clover, 32 Barb. 190; and see Sere v. Coit, 5 Abb. 482 and post, in note to $ 142, sub. 1, · Plaintiff suing as erecutor.)
Of an action against officers of the United States Government in certain cases. See Ripley v. Gel ston, 9 Johns. 201 ; Re Stacey, 10 id. 328; Hoyt v. Gelston, 13 id. 141 ; Wilson v. McKenzie, 7 Hill, 95 ; Teall v. Felton,' 1 Coms. 537; 8. O. 3 Barb. 512 ; McButt v. Murray, 10 Abb. 196.
To compel a party to convey lands in another State. (Bailey v. Rider, 10 N. Y. 363 ; Gardner v. Ogden, 22 N. Y., 327 ; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N. Y., 587; Fenner v. Sanborn, 37 Barb. 610.)
For a fraudulent conspiracy formed by defendants in another State, to divest plaintiff of his title to lands in this State where the relief sought is damages for the wrong (Mussina v. Belden, 6 Abb. 165).
To discharge on habeas corpus persons enlisted in the U. S. army (Re Carl. ton, 7 Cow. 471; see Re Dabb, 12 Abb. 113 ; Re Phelan, 9 id. 286 ; U. S. v. Wyngali, 5 Hill, 16; Re Ferguson, 9 Johns. 239; Re Husted, 1 Johns. Cas. 136 see Re Hopson, 40 Barb. 34).
Of actions on bonds given for duties to the U. 8. (U. S. v. Dodge, 14 Johns. 95).
On actions by collectors of U. S. customs upon receiptor's agreement for safo-keeping of forfeited goods (Sailly v. Cleveland, 10 Wend. 156).
Of actions for torts at sea (Percival v. Hickey, 18 Johns. 257 ; and see Novi v Hullett, 16 id. 327; Wilson v. McKenzie, 7 Hill, 95; Gardner v. Thomas, 14 Johns. 134)
Of actions respecting real estate out of this State (Watts v. Kinney, 6 Hill 82 ; Muzsina v. Belden, 6 Abb. 165; Ward v. Arredondo, Hopk. 213; Shattuck v. Cassidy, 3 Edw. 152; Slatter v. Carroll, 2 Sandf. Ch. 573; De Klyn v. Watkins, 3 id. 185; D'Ivernois v. Leavitt, 23 Barb. 63).
Of an action on a contract made in a foreign country, not stamped as required by the law of the country where made (Skinner v. Tinker, 34 Barb. 333).
Of an action upon a policy of insurance issued within this State by a resident agent of a foreign insurance company (Burns v. Provincial Ins. Co., 35 Barb. 320; and see Watson y. Cabot Bok, 5 Sand. 423, affirmed in the Court of Appeals so said, 4 Duer, 606, and see post, sec. 427).
THE COURTS HAVE NOT JURISDICTION
To entertain an action brought against the State itself except as authorized by statute (Kiersted v. The People, I Abb. 385 ; Garr v. Bright, 1 Barb. ch. 157).
Of an action in which a foreign consul is defendant, either alone or with others (Rock River Bank v. Hoffman, 14 Abb. 72); and it is no answer to an application to vacate the proceedings in such an action that since the action was commenced the exequator of the said consul has been revoked (id., ; nor in the case of a consul sued jointly with others can the State court retain jurisdiction of the action by striking out the name of the consul, and pro ceeding against the other defendants (id.), and see Taaks v. Schmidt, 19 How. 413; Valarino v. Thompson, 3 Selden, 576. The exemption of a consul is not personal, and he cannot waive it (Valarino v. Thompson, 3 Selden, 576; and see i Barb. 449 ; 1 Sand. 690).
For a trespass on real property in another State (Hurd v. Miller, 2 Hilton, 540; Watts v. Kinney, 28 Wend. 484).
To restrain the prosecution of an action in another State (Williams V. Ayrault, 31 Barb. 364; Mitchell v. Bunch. 2 Paige, 606 ; Meade v. Merritt, id. 402 ; Baily V. Rider, 10 N. Y. 363 ; see, however, Field v. Holbrook, 3 Abb. 377; McKee v. Voorkies, 7 Cranch, 279; Phelan v. Smith, 8 Cal. 520 ; Diggs y. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179; Hill v. Hill, 28 Barb. 23 ; and see in note to $ 219, post).
To declare void a proceeding in a court of another State (Hill v. Hall, 28 Barb. 23), unless there is an attempt to enforce such proceeding in a court of this State. (Id. Dibson y. Pearce, 2 Kernan, 156.)
Of an action on contract against an Indian (Hastings v. Farmer, 4 Coms. 293).
Of actions between citizens of another State for personal torts, as assault or false imprisonment, committed within the jurisdiction of that other State. (Mcleor v. McCabe, 16 Abb. 320; 26 How. 257 ; Smith v. Bull, 17 Wend. 323; Lister v. Wright, 2 Hill, 320; Bach v. Bay State Co., 27 Barb. 248; 6 Abb. 415 ; 16 How. 1; and see Armstrong v. Foote, 11 Abb. 384; 19 How. 237; Martin v. Hill, 12 Barb. 631 ; and Molony v. Dows, 8 Abb. 316 ; contra.)
The courts of this state will not enforce the penal laws of the United States (U. S. v. Lathrop, 17 Johnson, 9) nor of any other State (Scoville v. Canfield, id. 338) nor a foreign bankrupt or revenue law (Mosselman v. Caen, 34 Barb. 66; Shinner y. Tinker, 34 Barb. 333).
Nor adjudicate on the right to salvage (Baker v. Hoag, 3 Selden, 563 ; Frith v. Crowell, 5 Barb. 209 ; see, however, Cashmere v. Croweli, 1 Sand. 715; Cashmere V. De Wolf, 2 id. 379).
For damages for infringement of a patent (Burrall v. Jewitt, 2 Paige, 134), or copyright (Dudley v. Mayhew, 3 Coms. 9), or where the existence and validity of a patent for invention must necessarily be shown to enable the plaintiff to recover (Tomlinson v. Battell, 4 Abb. 266).
As to the territorial jurisdiction of the State. See 1 R. S. 61 ; Munley v. The People, 3 Selden, 297; The People v. Hulse, 3 Hill, 309.
As to the jurisdictions of the several courts. See post; titles II, III, IV, V, VI, VII.
The judges of the State courts have no power to issue a writ of habeas corpus in cases of commitment or detainer under the authority of the United States. (Re Hopson, 40 Barb. 34.)
b. ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE MAYOR, &c., OF NEW YORK.The supreme court in the first district, the court of common pleas and the
superior court of the city of New York have exclusive jurisdiction of all actions or special proceedings wherein the Mayor, ‘Aldermen and Commonalty of said city are parties defendant (Laws 1860, p. 645, ch. 379, s. 1). See The People v. N. Y. & Harlem R. R. Co., 26 How. 54.
No action or special proceeding can be maintained against said Mayor, &c., unless it “ appear by and as an allegation in ” the complaint or moving papers that at least twenty days have elapsed since the claim on which such action or proceeding is founded was presented to the Comptroller of said city for adjustment, and that, upon a second demand in writing being made on said Comptroller after the expiration of said twenty days,” said Comptroller“ neglected or refused to make an adjustment or payment" of said claim. (Id. s. 2.)
Judgment for plaintiff in any such action or proceeding carries costs without regard to the amount of the recovery. (Id. s. 2.)
In the adjustment of claims by the Comptroller, he may administer oaths to claimants and witnesses, and examine them on all matters pertinent to the claim. (Id. s. 3.)
All process and papers for the commencement of actions and proceedings against the Corporation of said City must be served on the Mayor, Comptroller, or Counsel to the Corporation. (Id. s. 4.)
No execution can be levied on the property of said city until after ten days' notice in writing of the issuing said execution has been given to the Comptroller of said city. (Id. s. 5.)
The preceding provisions only apply to actions or proceedings commenced · after April 14, 1860. (Id. s. 6.)
As to costs and as to appeals in actions against municipal corporations. (See laws 1859, ch. 262, s. 3 ; laws 1858, ch. 334, in notes to sections 803, 323, and 354 post.)