Sciolina v. Erie Preserving Co.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1896 |
| Citation | 45 N.E. 371,151 N.Y. 50 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SCIOLINA v. ERIE PRESERVING CO. STEVER v. NEW YORK CENT. & H. R. R. CO. NIENDORFF v. MANHATTAN RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Actions by Antonio Sciolina against the Erie Preserving Company, by Jacob E. Stever against the New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company, and by Otto Niendorff against the Manhattan Railway Company. Certificates in behalf of the respective defendants, certifying that in the opinion of the appellate division a question of law was involved which ought to be reviewed by the court of appeals, were denied, and defendants applied to a justice of the court of appeals for the allowance of an appeal. Denied.
Simon Fleischmann, for appellants.
John C. Hubbell, for respondents.
The three cases above entitled are actions brought to recover damages for personal injury caused by negligence, in each of which a verdict was recovered, and the several judgments entered thereon have been affirmed on appeal, by unanimous decision of the appellate division of the supreme court in the departments, respectively, in which the cases were pending. 39 N. Y. Supp. 916, 944, and 38 N. Y. Supp. 690. After such affirmance, application was made, in behalf of the respective defendants, to the proper appellate division for a certificate certifying that in its opinion a question of law was involved, which ought to be reviewed by the court of appeals, and in each case the application was denied. The respective defendants have now applied to me, under subdivision 2 of section 191 of the Code of Civil Procedure, chapter 559 of the Laws of 1896, for leave to appeal to the court of appeals. I am of opinion that these applications should be denied for reasons which I shall briefly state.
The amended section of the Code under which the application is made declares that no appeal shall be taken to the court of appeals in certain specified cases, and, among others, from a judgment of affirmance in an action to recover damages for a personal injury, ‘when the decision of the appellate division is unanimous, unless such appellate division shall certify that in its opinion a question of law is involved, which ought to be reviewed by the court of appeals, or unless in case of refusal to so certify, an appeal is allowed by a judge of the court of appeals.’ The public history which preceded the enactment of this amendment of section 191 of the Code reflects light upon its interpretation. The new constitution had recently come into force. One of the serious problems which confronted its framers was how to arrange the judicial establishment of the state so as to secure the greatest efficiency and the highest usefulness of the courts, and at the same time bring the appellate business within the ability of the judiciary to dispose of it with reasonable promptness. The scheme finally adopted was to establish, in each of four departments into which to state was to be divided for judicial purposes, an appeallate court consisting of judges selected from the judges of the supreme court for the hearing of appeals in the first instance, and to make the decision of the appellate division final in certain cases. The scheme embodied in the constitution for the organization of the appellate divisions constituted them courts of great dignity and authority, and it was the expectation that their decisions would in many cases be accepted and acquiesced in by litigants, even when further appeal might be taken. Having constituted these courts of appeal, the convention continued the existing court of appeals, but limited its jurisdiction. The judiciary article expressly confines its general jurisdiction to the review of questions of law. It prohibited the court from reviewing a unanimous decision of an appellate division that there is evidence supporting, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bath Gaslight Co. v. Claffy
-
McDonald v. Metro. St. Ry. Co.
...asserted, which, if allowed to pass uncorrected, would be likely ‘to introduce confusion into the body of the law.’ Sciolina v. Preserving Co., 151 N. Y. 50, 45 N. E. 371. The court having directed a verdict, the appellant is entitled to the most favorable inferences deducible from the evid......
-
Neresheimer v. Smyth
...which may be sent here upon certificate have been often explained in some of the cases that have been before us. Sciolina v. Preserving Co., 151 N. Y. 50, 45 N. E. 371;Blaschko v. Wurster, 156 N. Y. 437, 51 N. E. 303;Coatsworth v. Railway Co., 156 N. Y. 451-458, 5§ N. E. 301. We think it ne......
-
Kleiner v. Third Ave. R. Co.
...does not fall within the principle applicable to the allowance of appeals to this court established by the case of Sciolina v. Preserving Co., 151 N. Y. 50, 45 N. E. 371, where one of the grounds stated for such an allowance is that there is an existing conflict in the decisions of the diff......
-
Bad beginnings.
...personal property in the same way that a hotel is strictly liable to its guests). (48) See MacPherson, 111 N.E. at 1052. (49) See Adams, 45 N.E. at 371. (50) See Brewer, supra note 4, at 937. (51) Id. (quoting Osborn v. Wilson & Co., 193 N.Y.S. 241, 242 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1922)). (52) 283 U.......