Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Ad quod damnum - Concurrent.

of the supreme court, and is used to restrain proceeding judicially in the suits or matters " which proper cause is shown. 2 R. S. 587. Appo, 20 N. Y. (6 Smith) 531, 540; People v. of New York, 3 Barb. 144; People v. TompWend. 154. A writ of prohibition ought not hen another adequate remedy exists. People 157.

on of the matter, if a prohibition absolute be of consultation is allowed directing the court ed in the suit or matter. 2 R. S. 588. See

[ocr errors]

num. This writ is issued when lands have ssion of for the use of the people of the ernor, and he is not able to agree with the urchase of the same. It contains a description ., and a direction to the sheriff of the county to ry of twelve men, the damages by reason of such R. S. 588.

on elections. This court alone has power to he validity of moneyed corporations. 1 R. S. 598. res. An action for the recovery of property forpeople of this State may be brought by the proper s court. Code, § 447.

rations. Judgment, under the report of arbitrators, red in any court of record. As to proceedings therein, . 541.

lvent debtors. This court has jurisdiction of proceedand against insolvent debtors. 2 R. S. 3-34.

wer. This court has jurisdiction of proceedings for easurement of dower. 2 R. S. 488.

ships and vessels. Proceedings may be had in the ne court for the collection of demands against ships and Laws of 1862, ch. 482.

IS.

. Claims against deceased persons. This court (or the ty court) may control the reference of disputed claims inst the estates of deceased persons, under the provisions of e Revised Statutes. 2 R. S. 88.

b. Concurrent. The supreme court has concurrent jurisdiction with the United States courts in certain cases, as follows: With the circuit court of the United States in all suits of a civil nature,

Court before 1846-Court under constitution of 1846-Present jurisdiction.

diction, subject to such alterations as the legislature might make concerning the same (Orig. Const., § 35; Const. of 1823, art. 7, § 13), and thus the court continued a court of general jurisdiction down to the adoption of the Revised Statutes in 1831.

Section 2. Court before 1846. The Revised Statutes, as adopted in 1831, declared that the supreme court should "possess the powers and exercise the jurisdiction which belonged to the supreme court of the colony of New York with the exceptions, limitations and additions created and imposed by the constitution and the laws of this State." 2 R. S. 196, § 1. 2 R. S. 196, § 1. Thus the court continued substantially as it was originally constituted, a court of general law jurisdiction, until the adoption of the constitution of 1846.

Section 3. Court under constitution of 1846. The constitution of 1846 declared that there should be a supreme court having general jurisdiction in law and equity, and, by the judiciary act of 1847, it was provided that it should possess the same jurisdiction as had formerly been exercised by the supreme court and court of chancery, thus uniting the two tribunals, which had previously been distinct. Const. of 1846, art. 6, § 3; Laws of 1847, ch. 280, § 16. See, also, Sherman v. Felt, 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.) 186. All laws relating to the jurisdiction of the then present supreme court and court of chancery, or any court held by any vice-chancellor, were made applicable to the court then constituted, so far as the same were consistent with the constitution and judiciary act. Laws of 1847, ch. 280, § 16. See ante, 295. Section 4. Present jurisdiction.

a. Original. The court has general jurisdiction, both at law and in equity. Const., art. 6, § 6. It has, as we have seen in tracing out the sources of its authority, the powers and jurisdiction of the old supreme court of the colony of New York, with the exceptions, limitations and additions created and imposed by the constitution and laws of the State (2 R. S. 196, § 1), and the old court of the colony had ample authority to take cognizance of all pleas and causes, civil, criminal and mixed, and to hear and determine the same as fully and absolutely as the courts of king's bench, common pleas and exchequer in England. 2 Rev. Laws of 1813, app. 11, 13. See Graham on Jurisdiction, 156.

This, being a superior court, will be presumed to have jurisdiction until the contrary appears. Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 130, 139. See Wright v. Douglass, 10 Barb. 97, 110.

Special proceedings-Habeas corpus-Certiorari

- Quo warranto.

In general, in respect to actions, this court has original jurisdiction of all actions, both real and personal, arising within this State, and of all transitory actions, wherever the cause of action may have arisen (Graham on Jurisdiction, 162), with the exceptions which will be noticed hereafter.

In the court of oyer and terminer criminal jurisdiction is exercised. See Laws of 1847, ch. 280, art 5. As regards its territorial extent, the jurisdiction of this court is co-extensive with the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the State, which is fixed and defined by statute. 1 R. S. 65, § 1.

Special proceedings. There is a large class of cases in which the supreme court has original jurisdiction, derived principally, if not wholly, from statute. As these cases will hereafter be fully discussed, there will be but a brief reference to the statutes upon which they are founded. Among these are

1. Habeas corpus. The supreme court, its justices and any officer authorized to perform the duties of a justice of this court in chambers, being within the county where the prisoner is confined; or, if there is no such officer within the county, then some officer having like authority in an adjoining county may issue this writ, to inquire into the detention of any person, in the manner prescribed by statute. 2 R. S. 563.

2. Certiorari. This writ is a substitute for the writ of habeas corpus in the discretion of the court, and is prosecuted in the same manner. 2 R. S. 563.

It was formerly much used by way of appeals in civil actions, but is now superseded by appeals. Code, § 323.

There are various other provisions respecting the statutory writ of certiorari which it is unnecessary to notice in this place. See 2 R. S. 14, 602; id. 732, 736.

3. Scire facias. The writ of scire facias is abolished by the Code, and the remedies heretofore obtained thereby may be had by action. Code, § 428.

4. Quo warranto. This writ and proceeding, by information in the nature of quo warranto, has also been abolished, and an action in the nature of a quo warranto substituted. Code, § 428. The action is to be brought by the attorney-general in the name of the people of the State, in the cases and in the manner prescribed by law: Code, §§ 428 to 447.

5. Mandamus. This remedy is one of the most important prerogatives of the court, and was derived from the laws before

Mandamus-Prohibition.

referred to, giving to the supreme court the powers of the king's bench in England.

The remedy is used to compel the performance of any duties devolving by law upon any officer, body or board acting in a public or quasi public character. It will lie only to give effect to a clear legal right. The People v. Supervisors of Chenango County, 11 N. Y. (1 Kern.) 563; The People ex rel. Post v. Ransom, 2 N. Y. (2 Comst.) 490. And when such right is clear, if a remedy may be had by action, that must be pursued, for a mandamus will not lie. The People ex rel. Mygatt v. Supervisors of Chenango County, 11 N. Y. (1 Kern.) 563; Ex parte The Fireman's Insurance Company, 6 Hill, 243; The People v. Supervisors of Columbia County, 10 Wend. 363; Hull v. The Supervisors of the County of Oneida, 19 Johns. 259; Matter of Shipley, 10 id. 484; The King v. Bank of England, Doug. 524. It has been said that "this is not universally true in relation to corporations and ministerial officers." McCullough v. The Mayor of Brooklyn, 23 Wend. 458. See The People ex rel. Griffin v. Steele, 2 Barb. 397.

The general rule has been stated to be, that, where the law enjoins a duty and no other legal remedy exists, it is the office of this court to enforce obedience to the law by mandamus. Hull v. Supervisors of Oneida, 19 Johns. 259, 262; Ex parte Nelson, 1 Cow. 417; The People ex rel. Wilson v. The Supervisors of Albany, 12 Johns. 414; Rex v. Barker, 3 Burr. 1265; Bac. Abr. "Mandamus," 527. But this is not an absolute rule. The People ex rel. Doughty v. The Judges of Dutchess C. P., 20 Wend. 658; The Judges of Oneida Common Pleas v. The People, 18 id. 79, 98; Rex v. Justices of Wilts, 2 Chitty, 257.

Although it is not intended in this place to specify the particular cases in which the writ of mandamus will be issued, yet it may be laid down as a general principle that it will be allowed to enforce ministerial duties, but not to control the lawful discretion of any body or officer. People v. Supervisors of Columbia, 10 Wend. 363; Hull v. Supervisors of Oneida, 19 Johns. 259, 263; The People ex rel. Doughty v. The Judges of Dutchess C. P., 20 Wend. 658; The United States v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 42; Ex parte Whitney, 13 Pet. 404.

A mandamus cannot issue out of this court to a United States officer. McClung v. Silliman, 5 Curtis, 184; 6 Wheat. 598. 6. Prohibition and consultation. The writ of prohibition can

« AnteriorContinuar »