Daniel B. Marsh et al., Appellants, v. Philomela R. Benson et al., Respondents

Daniel B. Marsh et al., Appellants, v. Philomela R. Benson et al., Respondents. Since the adoption of the Constitution of 1846, giving law and equity jurisdiction to tlie Supreme Court, suits for equitable relief may be commenced in that court though the amount claimed be less than one hundred dollars. This was, or would have been, under the old law, a bill filed against the respondent, Philomela, a married woman, to enforce an equitable claim against her separate estate. The amount claimed to be due was less than $100, and for that cause the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, with costs,, on the ground that that court had no jurisdiction of the matter. On appeal to the General Term this decree was affirmed, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. M. Goodrich, for the appellants. I. O. Aikin, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Peckham, J.] Peckham, J. The question involved in this appeal has been ■ decided in this court in Braman v. Johnson (decided in October, 1863), in favor of the appellant. The respondent insists, however, that the court should not grant costs to the appellant of the appeal. I think the judgment should be reversed, and the cause remitted to the Supreme Court to proceed thereon, with costs of the appeal to this court to abide the event of the cause. The judgment is reversed upon those terms. Judgment reversed.