American Historical Soc., Inc. v. Glenn

• Decision Date: 19 July 1928
• Citation: 248 N.Y. 445,162 N.E. 481
• Parties: AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOC., Inc., v. GLENN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

248 N.Y. 445

162 N.E. 481

AMERICAN HISTORICAL SOC., Inc.,

v.GLENN.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 19, 1928.

Action by the American Historical Society, Inc., against William A. Glenn. From a judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint, on the ground that City Court Act, § 27, under which the action was brought, is unconstitutional as applied to defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

See, also, 131 Misc. Rep. 291, 227 N. Y. S. 174.

Appeal from City Court of New York.

Thomas W. Constable, of New York City, for appellant.

Jay Leo Rothschild, of New York City, for respondent.

POUND, J.

The judiciary article (article 6, § 15) of the New York state Constitution, as amended in 1925, makes the City Court of the City of New York, theretofore an inferior local court of civil jurisdiction established by the Legislature, a constitutional court and extends its jurisdiction over the entire city. It reads as follows:

‘The City Court of the City of New York is continued, and, from and after the first day of January in the second year following the adoption of this article, it shall have the same jurisdiction and power throughout the city of New York, under the name of the City Court of the City of New York, as it now possesses within the county of New York and the county of Bronx, and original jurisdiction concurrent with the Supreme Court in actions for the recovery of money only in which the complaint demands judgment for a sum not exceeding $3,000, and interest, and in actions of replevin, foreclosure of mechanic's liens and liens on personal property where the property involved does not exceed in value the sum of $3,000. Its jurisdiction to enter judgment upon a counterclaim shall be unlimited.’

At the same time article 6, § 18, was amended to read as follows:

‘The Legislature shall not hereafter confer upon any inferior or local court of its creation any equity jurisdiction or any greater jurisdiction in other respects than is conferred upon County Courts by or under this article; but it may provide that the territorial jurisdiction in civil cases of any inferior or local court now existing or hereafter established in any city or of justices of the peace in cities shall extend throughout the county or counties in which such city may be located. * * *’

Article 6, § 11, was amended to read in part as follows:

‘* * * County Courts in counties outside the city of New York shall have the powers and jurisdiction now prescribed by law, and also original jurisdiction in actions for the recovery of money only, where all the defendants reside in the county and in which the complaint demands judgment for a sum not exceeding $3,000. * * * The Legislature may hereafter enlarge or restrict the jurisdiction of the county courts provided, however, that their jurisdiction shall not be so extended as to authorize an action therein for the recovery of money only in which (1) the sum demanded exceeds $3,000, or (2) in which any person not a resident of the county is a defendant, unless such defendant have an office for the transaction of business within the county and the cause of action arose therein.’

After the adoption of these amendments to the judiciary article, the Legislature adopted the New York City Court Act (Laws 1926, c. 539, in effect January 1, 1927), repealing the old City Court Act (Laws 1920, c. 935). It provides (section 27) that ‘all process and mandates of the court may be executed in any part of the state.’

The plaintiff brought this action to recover the sum of $37.50 for books sold and delivered, viz. ‘Courts and Lawyers of New York-a History,’ and for work, labor, and servicesin the execution of a copper plate portrait of defendant, the sum of $125. Defendant was served with process in the city of Albany where he resided. He moved to vacate the service of the summons on the ground that the City Court did not have jurisdiction of him or of the subject of the action and that section 27 of the City Court Act was unconstitutional in so far as it extended the jurisdiction of that court to defendants in such actions who did not reside in the city of New York and had no office for the transaction of business therein. The City Court denied the motion. The Appellate Term on appeal (131 Misc. Rep. 291, 227 N. Y. S. 174) reversed the order of the City Court and granted the motion. The City Court, on the remittitur from the Appellate Term, granted judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint.

Const. art. 6, § 7, and Civil Practice Act, § 588, subd. 3, provide that an appeal may be taken to the Court of Appeals as of right, from a judgment or order of a court of record of original jurisdiction which finally determines an action or special proceeding, where the only question involved on the appeal is the validity of a statutory provision of the state or of the United States under the Constitution of the state or of the United States, and on any such appeal only the constitutional question shall be considered and determined by the court. Pursuant to this provision plaintiff has appealed directly to this court from the judgment of the City Court.

The constitutional question to be determined is whether the Legislature may authorize the City Court of the City of New York to issue process, in actions to recover a sum of money only, to be executed outside the city of New York.

The revised judiciary article of 1925 was drafted and submitted to the Legislature by a constitutional convention created by Laws 1921, c. 348, and charged with the city of considering and reporting to the Legislature suitable amendments to such article. It made several reports to the Legislature, accompanying its proposed amendments, the last dated January 20, 1925, in which it said:

‘The text in most instances explains itself and indicates the purpose and intent of the proposed amendments; but the following explanation of reasons for some of the principal amendments may be of aid to the Legislature of 1925.’

The report deals at length with the City Court of the City of New York. It says, among other things:

‘The convention of 1921 recommended that the jurisdiction of the existing City Court of the City of New York be extended over the entire city under its present name with its jurisdiction increased to $3,000. This would make its jurisdiction, so far as money demands were concerned, conform to the jurisdiction of the County Courts throughout the remainder of the state, and would tend to relieve the Supreme Court of a large number of cases that are now brought there. * * * It was believed that the extension of the jurisdiction of this important civil tribunal to cover the whole of the greater city of New York would be a distinct reform and tend to the better and more effective, economical, and satisfactory administration of justice in civil cases.’

‘The City Court of New York as extended would be a court of high importance and dignity, with civil jurisdiction over an immense population, more than one-half the inhabitants of the state, and as such it would be likely to attract the best talent at the bar by the opportunity for a broader field of public service and usefulness. Such a more extended, more important and more dignified court would, it is believed, likewise attract litigants, who would naturally be inclined to seek relief therein rather than submit to the delay which is quite unavoidable in the Supreme Court as our great court of original general jurisdiction.’

‘Careful consideration was given to the suggestion urged by some of the learned justices of the City Court of New York that their court should be consolidated with the Supreme Court, as was done in and by the Constitution of 1894 with respect to the Superior Court of the City of New York, the Court of Common Pleas for the City and County of New York, the City Court of Brooklyn and the Superior Court of Buffalo ( vide old section 5); but in the judgment of the judiciary convention of 1921 this would be distinctly inadvisable and would tend to defeat the essential and beneficent purpose which the City Court now serves of affording to the people of the greater city of New York, as the County Courts afford to the people of other parts of the state, the advantage of a tribunal which ought to be less crowded with cases th...