Frees v. Ford

Frees v. Ford. County Cou/rts. The county courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; to support their judgment, the facts necessary to confer jurisdiction must appear in the record ; it must show that the defendant was a resident of the county in which the suit was commenced. Appeal from the general term of the Supreme Court, in the third district, where a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the County Court of Columbia county, had been affirmed. This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the filing and service of a declaration in the usual form, containing the common counts. The damages claimed were $200; but there was no allegation as to the residence of the defendant. The defendant pleaded that the supreme court had exclusive jurisdiction of the cause of action, and that the same was not subject to the jurisdiction of the county court. The plaintiff demurred to the plea; and the defendant joined in demurrer. The county court gave judgment for the plaintiff on the demurrer; which having been affirmed by the supreme court, the defendant took this appeal. The counsel argued the question of the constitutionality of the 30th section of the judiciary act of 1847, conferring original jurisdiction on the county courts; but the court declined to pass upon the question. Edwards, for the appellant. Hogeboom, for the respondent. Followed in Judge v. Hall, 5 Lans. 69. Mr. Justice Welles, in Ms dissenting opinion, held the act to he constitutional. [MAJORITY — * Johnson, J.] * Johnson, J. — There is a ground on which this -* judgment ought to be reversed, leaving untouched the question of the constitutionality of the judiciary act, so far as it relates to the jurisdiction of the . county, courts. We ought not. to pass upon the ^ ^question - of. the constitutionality. of-.a statute, unless the determination of the point is' necessary to the determination of the cause. Indeed, we cannot, if we would, so pass upon it, as to render our decision efficient as authority, when there is another and clear ground on which our judgment may be supported. The 30th section of the judiciary act provides, that the county courts- shall have jurisdiction “to hear, try and determine, according to law, the following actions, when all of the defendants, at the time of commencing the action, reside in the county in which said court is held; actions of debt, assumpsit and covenant, when the debt or damages claimed shall not exceed two thousand dollars,” &c. This county court is not a court of-general jurisdiction, as was the old court of common -pleas;-on the contrary,- it is a new court, with & limited, statutory jurisdiction, To all such courts- the-rule universally applies, that their jurisdiction must appear upon the record. (Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8.) In this cáse, it does not appear upon the record, that the defendant was, at the time the suit was commenced, a resident of the county of Columbia; This being a jurisdictional fact, and- not averred upon the record, the judgment must be reversed. Judgment reversed. Welles ánd Edmonds, JJ., dissented.