USA > New York > Courts and lawyers of New York; a history, 1609-1925, Volume II > Part 37
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46
869
THE COURT OF CHANCERY
two minute books to which reference has been made; "most of it related to infants and lunatics."
Under the title "First Trial Term in the Old Court of Chancery of the State of New York," Mr. L. B. Proctor con- tributed an article to the "Albany Law Journal" in 1892,2 re- viewing a term of this court held in the old Albany City Hall, or Stadt Huys, on July 25, 1786. He writes : "On that day and in that hall the Court of Chancery of the State of New York was opened for the first time, in Albany, under the Constitu- tion of 1777." Robert R. Livingston presided, and there was "a large assemblage of learned and distinguished lawyers in attendance." He quotes a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, in which the former gives his opinion of our first chancellor, Robert R. Livingston, as a man who "is in every sense of the word a wise, good and great man, one of the ablest of our American statesmen. Nothing that he writes or does seems to cost him any effort, yet there is beauty, power and practicability in all his intellectual productions. It is not a power that awes ; it is gentle, unpretending, but resistless." New York was fortunate in having as its chancellor a man so talented and so highly esteemed by the leading men of the republic.
cery held at the Chancellor's chambers in the city of New York, the Chan- cellor "ordered Mr. John Lansing to transmit to the register of the court such of the rules of the court as were in his possession, together with all papers belonging to the court." A court of chancery was held on March 17, 1786, before the Chancellor, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Richard Morris, and John Sloss Hobart, judge. The case of John Mansell et al. ads. Deborah Smith was before the court. The entry in the book is as follows : "this day after debate by Mr. Burr and Mr. Hamilton of counsel for defen- dants, and Mr. B. Livingston, of counsel for complainants, respecting in- terest to be allowed during the war, the Court takes time to consider until Friday next." The same court met on the 24th of March, and the Chancel- lor, "after full argument and mature deliberation," decided that there should be no allowance of interest from July 7, 1776, to January 1, 1784. The cause appears to have been one to recover the interest on a legacy of $1,000 from July 7, 1767 .- Hon. Charles H. Truax, in "History of Bench and Bar of New York" (1897), Vol. I, pp. 108-109.
2. Vol. XLV, p. 55.
870
COURTS AND LAWYERS
Describing the opening of the court, Proctor writes :
Precisely at half-past nine in the morning, the City Hall bell announced the arrival of the hour for the courts to convene. According to the custom of the time, in opening the terms of courts, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Sheriff of the county, both in full uniform, the Mayor of the city, and members of the bar waited on the Chancellor at his hotel, and in procession escorted him to the City Hall. The court-room was thronged with spec- tators. Amid the most impressive silence, the Chancellor took his seat on the bench, the crier made the usual proclamation, and the first Court of Chancery under our free government opened for business.
It almost seems that Mr. Proctor supposed that this was the first business done by the State Court of Chancery, but, as has been stated, Mr. Justice Truax found record of an earlier court.
Burr was present at this opening term in Albany, as an opponent of Hamilton, and they occupied the time of the court for almost the entire day, in a "case of great celebrity, involv- ing considerations of the most important character." As to these two "greatest of American lawyers" an eminent jurist is quoted as saying : "As a lawyer Burr was the equal of Hamil- ton, as a scholar he was his superior. As a statesman Hamil- ton rose to higher eminence than Burr. Both had their faults and social frailties." On this day, in Albany, in the case brought by Philip Schuyler against Henry Ten Eyck and others, to perpetually enjoin Ten Eyck and others from build- ing a pier and breakwater at low water mark on the Hudson banks, Hamilton "rose to the highest height of legal science and legal eloquence." But his eloquence "was rather that of the parliamentary orator and debater than that of the close, terse, well-disciplined lawyer." Burr, on the other hand, "sel- dom indulged in rhetorical flights. His style was pure, simple and severe, the vehicle of reason and logic." He was success- ful in this case, the chancellor denying the injunction.
By Chapter 34 of the Laws of 1779, the chancellor was pro-
ALEXANDER HAMILTON
First Secretary of the Treasury in Washington's Cabinet, and financier of fore- most ability; a prominent pamphleteer in the agitation preceding the Revolution ; Captain in Continental Army, 1776; on Washington's staff, 1777-81; distinguished service at Yorktown, 1781; member Continental Congress, 1782-3; Constitutional Convention, 1787; Commander-in-Chief, 1789. Mortally wounded in duel at Wee- hawken, N. J., July 11, 1804. Born on Nevis Is., W. I., Jan. 11, 1757 ; died at New York July 12, 1804. From painting by John Trumbull.
871
THE COURT OF CHANCERY
vided with a salary of £400 a year. There were other fees, which supplemented this meagre stipend somewhat. For in- stance, by an act passed on April 18, 1785, the chancellor was entitled to receive :
For the Seal to every Common Writ. Three Shillings
For Exemplifications Twenty Shillings
For every Decree Forty Shillings
For every Opinion or Order, on a Petition or Motion ..
Twenty Shillings
For every Order Appointing a Guardian Ten Shillings
The Master in Chancery was entitled to receive :
For every Summons Three Shillings
For every Report or Certificate, made Pursuant to Order Twenty Shillings
For every Certificate or Report, made upon Petition or Five Shillings Motion
For Drawing every Report (per sheet) One Shilling
The first rules relating to the Court of Chancery were made by Chancellor Livingston in 1787, and are to be found in Volume 3, "Minutes of Chancery." Livingston served until October, 1891, when he resigned, having been appointed Min- ister to France. His successor, as chancellor, was John Lan- sing, Jr., who had been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and whose end was so tragic, his disappearance in 1829 hav- ing never been solved. He was succeeded as chancellor, in October, 1814, by James Kent. Story said that although Liv- ingston did much to establish our Court of Equity, "that court did not attain its full maturity and masculine vigor until Chancellor Kent brought to it the fullness of his own extraor- dinary learning, unconquerable diligence and brilliant tal- ents." Kent's own testimony, as quoted in the "American Bar Association Journal" for December, 1924,3 was: "I took the court as if it had been a new institution and never before
3. In the report of the ceremonies attending the presentation of a Kent Memorial Tablet by the American Bar Association to the New York Court of Appeals, pp. 851-854.
872
COURTS AND LAWYERS
known in the United States. I had nothing to guide me, and was left at liberty to assume all such English chancery power and jurisdiction as I thought applicable under our Constitu- tion." The Hon. Edward M. Colie, whose address of No- vember 24, 1924, when presenting the Kent Memorial Tablet to the New York Court of Appeals for the American Bar As- sociation, as reported in the journal above referred to, said of Kent: "The soundness, wisdom and learning of his decisions placed the equity system of this State upon a firm foundation, and the influence of this great State, unsurpassed by any other at that critical period, was a potent factor in creating the equity jurisprudence of the country. To play the part Kent did in establishing the common law and the principles of equity jurisprudence required the skill and qualities of a statesman. . . . His opinions were in many cases treatises elaborated to overcome the prejudices which he realized as obstacles to his purpose. His discussions of the Civil Law often were manifestly designed to soften the differences be- tween the two systems."
In 1823 Kent reached the age of sixty years, and though still in full physical and mental vigor, and without a peer as a jurist, he had to bow to the constitutional limitation, and retire from the chancellorship. His successor, Nathan Sand- ford, served as chancellor until 1826. Samuel Jones, who later became Chief Justice of the Superior Court of New York City (1828-47) was appointed chancellor in 1826 and served until 1828, when Reuben H. Walworth became chancellor, the last the State was to have.
The Court of Chancery was never popular, and, at the time Walworth was appointed chancellor, the office was one that most jurists avoided. "It is said that the office was offered to all the judges of the Supreme Court and declined by them, before it was offered to Mr. Walworth."4 The new
4. Chancellor Walworth's Address to the Bar, reads, in part: "In assuming the duties of this responsible station, which at some future day
873
THE COURT OF CHANCERY
chancellor himself seemed to be somewhat taken aback. He frankly admitted that he had "a very limited knowledge of chancery law," and in other ways did not feel himself qualified to take such responsibility, "a situation which has heretofore been filled by the most able and experienced members of the profession." These confessions he made in an address to the bar, soon after being appointed chancellor ; and it is said that Aaron Burr promptly advised the chancellor not to publish his address ; "If the people read it," he said, "they will say if you knew you were not qualified, why the devil did you take the office."
However, Chancellor Walworth had good aid in the ad- ministration of the Court of Chancery. He did not have the ability of Kent, and was not called upon for as much, the Con- stitution of 1821 providing that each Circuit Judge should act as vice-chancellor. In 1831 the chancery business of the First Circuit became more than the circuit judge could attend to, so a separate vice-chancellorship was established for that district, and in 1839 another was established at Rochester for the Eighth Circuit. Masters and examiners in chancery were provided by the Constitution of 1821 ; also registers. It was recorded that in 1823 there were five hundred and ten masters and twenty-five examiners.5
But the Court of Chancery was doomed to pass away. Browne writes:
The people were dissatisfied, as they always had been, with the Court of Chancery. It was regarded as tedious, costly, and capricious, and as frequently announcing a worse rule of law,
would have been the highest object of my ambition, permit me to say that the solicitations of my too partial friends rather than my own inclination or judgment have induced me to consent to occupy it at this time. Brought up a farmer till the age of seventeen, deprived of all the advantages of a classical education, and with a very limited knowledge of chancery law, I find myself, at the age of thirty-eight, suddenly and unexpectedly placed at the head of the justices of the State, a situation which has heretofore been filled by the most able and experienced members of the profession."-"History of Bench and Bar of New York," Vol. I, p. 113.
5. "Civil List of New York," P 329, edition of 1888.
874
COURTS AND LAWYERS
while professing to utter a higher and better, than the common- law courts. The extreme inconvenience and the frequently ruinous consequences of the distinction between equitable and legal remedies excited great hostility. The suitor was fre- quently driven to and fro between the two courts, each insist- ing that the other was his appropriate tribunal. Between the two stools of law and equity, he came to the ground. Essaying to enter the Temple of Justice, he was expelled for coming in at the wrong door, and frequently was utterly denied admis- sion because the guardians of each portal thought he should apply at the other.
Browne, however, states that although the popular dis- content with the Court of Chancery was deeper than with the Court of Errors, its decisions had proved of far greater value, "thanks to the abilities and virtues of two chancellors,6 Kent and Walworth, whose names are scarcely less conspicuous and splendid than those of Hardwicke and Eldon."
By the provision of the Constitution of 1846, the Court of Chancery was abolished, and equity jurisdiction thereafter vested in the Supreme Court, so that every justice of the Su- preme Court became practically a chancellor, as well as a justice.
COURT OF ADMIRALITY.
The Court of Admiralty had only a short life under the State government. Lewis Morris was the last judge of ad-
6. State Court of Chancery, 1777-1846-The Chancellors were: Robert R. Livingston, appointed May 8, 1777, by Convention ; commissioned October 17, 1777; reëlected June 27, 1783, in consequence of doubts having arisen whether he had not vacated his office by accepting that of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, under the National Congress; John Lansing, Jr., appointed Chancellor October 21, 1801; James Kent, October 25, 1814; Nathan Sanford, August 1, 1823; Samuel Jones, Jan. 24, 1826; Reuben H. Walworth, April 22, 1828, and in office until court abolished by Constitution of 1846.
The Vice-Chancellors (other than the Circuit Judges who acted as such under the Constitution of 1821) were: William McCoun, appointed March 16, 1831; Lewis H. Sandford, May 12, 1846, for First District; Frederick Whittlesey, April 16, 1839, for Eighth District.
Assistant Vice-Chancellors for First District were: Murray Hoffman, apptd. April 15, 1839; Lewis H. Sandford, March II, 1843; Anthony L. Robertson, whose term began October 1, 1846 and ended July 1, 1847.
875
THE COURT OF CHANCERY
miralty of the Crown court. He resigned in 1774. On No- vember 25, 1775, the Continental Congress recommended the colonies to erect courts to adjudicate questions that might arise relative to sea prizes during the war. All trials were to be by jury. Acting on this recommendation, the New York authorities authorized the establishment of the High Court of Admiralty of the State of New York. Act passed by the Continental Congress October 13, 1777, authorized the laying of appeals from this court to a committee of Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, an act was passed establishing a court to hear appeals. It was known as the Court of Ap- peals in Cases of Capture. On February 14, 1787, the State Legislature passed a bill to prevent encroachments of the Federal Court upon the State, the act declaring that the na- tional court should not have cognizance over transactions within the boundaries of the State. But, when the United States Constitution was adopted, admiralty jurisdiction was vested exclusively in the Federal courts; hence the State Court of Admiralty went out of existence in 1789. Since that time, its powers have been exercised by the United States Dis- trict Court.
Lewis Morris was appointed judge of admiralty by the Provincial Convention on July 31, 1776. He did not, how- ever, serve, and two days later, on August 2, he declined the office. The only other judge of the State court was Lewis Graham, appointed August 5, 1776, receiving commission from the State government on February 17, 1778. John Mckesson was appointed register of admiralty on July 31, 1776, and on the same day Robert Benson became marshal.
COURT OF CLAIMS.
The Court of Claims, which superseded the Board of Claims on March 9, 1897, was, by Chapter 856 of the Laws of III, in turn superseded by a Board of Claims with the powers and jurisdiction of said court, except as a court of record.
876
COURTS AND LAWYERS
Chapter I, of the Laws of 1915 restored the Court of Claims. According to Chapter 922, Laws of 1920, the court is regularly composed of three judges, appointed by the Governor, for terms of nine years. The annual salary is $8,000. One or two additional judges may be appointed for terms not ex- ceeding three years, upon certificate of the presiding judge that the accumulation of business requires additional judges. The presiding judge is designated by the Governor.
The judges in 1924 were: Fred M. Ackerson, appointed February 16, 1915; Sanford W. Smith, on March 4, 1918; James A. Parsons, on March 31, 1924. The associate judges in 1924 were: John B. Corwin, appointed February 23, 1921 ; Charles Morschauser, appointed January 9, 1923, and his term expiring on February 1, 1924. Frederick A. Colson is clerk.
The Court of Claims has authority to hear, audit, and de- termine claims against the State and counterclaims against claimants. A judge of the Court of Claims must be an attor- ney and counsellor-at-law of at least ten years practice.
PART FOUR
THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Principal authorities quoted in the ten chapters that comprise Chapters XL to XLIX, inclusive, reviewing the Judicial Districts by counties :
General sources, of frequent reference : "History of Bench and Bar of New York" (1897) ; Chester's "Legal and Judicial History of New York" (19II) ; "Civil List of New York," 1888 edition; "Legislative Manual of New York," 1924; and innumerable county historical works.
Other sources of particular reference include: "Laws of New York," 1855, 1859, 1860; "The New York County System," paper by Gilbertson ; "Courts of the State of New York," by Scott; "History of the United States," by Bryant and Gay ; "History of New Netherland," by O'Callaghan ; "State of Jurisprudence During the Dutch Period," by Daly; "History of New York," by Brodhead; "Memorial History of New York"; "History of New York," by Lamb; "History of the City of New York," by Booth ; "New Amsterdam and Its People," by Innes; "Senate Documents, State of New York," 1925; "History of the Court of Common Pleas of the City of New York," by Brooks; "The Superior City Courts," a paper in N. Y. Bar Assn. Report, 1893; "New York City and Superior Courts," an article in the "Green Bag," Vol. IV; abridging article on "The Inferior Criminal Courts of New York City," by Mary E. Padden, in "Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology," Vol XI; an article on "A Court of Prevention- The Municipal Term Court of New York City," by City Magistrate W. Bruce Cobb, "Jnl. Crim. Law and Criminology," Vol. XI; "American Re- view of Reviews," March, 1925 issue; "Landmarks of a Lawyer's Life- time," an excellent volume by Strong, 1914; the "Charter of Greater New York"; the "History of the Office of Corporation Counsel and the Law Department of the City of New York," Greener, 1906; "Borough of the Bronx, 1639-1913," by Cook; "History of Kings County, N. Y., by Stiles ; "Borough of Brooklyn and Queens, Counties of Nassau and Suffolk," a comprehensive history, by Hazelton, 1925; "Famous Americans on Brook- lyn's Bench and Bar," an article in "Brooklyn Eagle," October 26, 1911; "History of Queens County"; "Annals of Tryon County," by Campbell ; "A Group of Great Lawyers," by Miller; "Annals of Albany," by Munsell; "Minutes of the Court of Rensselaerswyck, 1648-1652," by Van Laer ; "Min- utes of the Court of Fort Orange and Beverwyck, 1852-60," by Van Laer ; "Troy and Rensselaer County-a History," by Hayner, 1925; "History of Essex County," H. P. Smith; "History of Clinton and Franklin Counties," 1880; "Washington County, N. Y .; Its History to the Close of the Nine- teenth Century," by Stone; "Centennial History of Jefferson County," 1894; "A History of Jefferson County in the State of New York," by Hough ; "Life of Silas Wright," by Hammond; "Notes and Queries," N. Y. State
878
COURTS AND LAWYERS
Hist. Soc. paper, 1922, Vol. XX, p. 278; "History of Syracuse and Onon- daga County," 1925, by Chase; "History of Chenango and Madison Counties 1784-1880," by Smith; "Historical Souvenir of Cortland," Grips, 1900; "Bench and Bar of Cortland County, N. Y.," "Hist. Cortland County," by Smith; "History of Tioga, Chemung, Tompkins and Schuyler Counties," by Everts & Ensign, 1879; "History of Cooperstown," Shaw, 1886; "Coop- erstown Centennial Celebration," 1907; "History of Broome County, N. Y.," 1924; "Albany Law Journal," Vol. LVI; "Proctor on the First Term of Supreme Court in Western New York"; "History of Ontario County," Millikin, 1911; "History of Steuben County, N. Y., and Its People," by Irvin W. Near, 1911; "History of Steuben County, N. Y.," by Clayton, 1879; "History of Cayuga County," Stokes, 1879; "Allegany County," Beers; "History of the Settlement of Steuben County, N. Y.," McMaster ; "Landmarks of Monroe County, N. Y.," "History of Niagara County, N. Y.," by Williams, 1921; "History of Erie County," by E. Perry Smith ; "History of Erie County," by Truman C. White; "Centennial History of Erie County," by Crisfield Johnson; "Municipality of Buffalo-a History," by Henry Wayland Hill, LL. D., 1924; "Pioneer History of Orleans County, N. Y.," by Arad Thomas; "History of Chautauqua County and Its People," by John Phillips Downs, 1921; "History of Westchester County, N. Y.," 1925; "The New York City Ring; Its Origin, Maturity and Fall," 1873; "Writings and Speeches of Samuel J. Tilden," by Bigelow, 1885; "Bench and Bar of Westchester County, N. Y.," by Isaac N. Mills, in "Scharf's County History"; "History of Poughkeepsie, 1683-1905," by Platt; "His- tory of Dutchess County," by Smith; "History of Orange County, N. Y.," Clark, 1881.
The lists of County Judges, Surrogates and District Attorneys given in the footnotes of these chapters are complete, from the erection of each county to the present; these records were most carefully compiled from State files, and were brought up to date to the end of March, 1925, in the office of the Secretary of State. No compilation so complete is in public print.
CHAPTER XL. THE JUDICIAL DISTRICTS AND THE COUNTY SYSTEMS.
The next ten chapters will be devoted to the legal history of the nine judicial districts of New York State, tracing sep- arately the development of the courts, bench and bar in each of the sixty-one counties of the State. The judicial districts, as established by the Act of 1847, and since altered under the Acts of 1857, 1876 and 1906, and as reestablished by Chapter 35 of the Laws of 1909, are as follows :
District I-Counties of New York and Bronx, the latter having been created by Chapter 548, Laws of 1912.
District II-Counties of Kings, Nassau, Queens, Rich- mond, and Suffolk.
District III-Counties of Albany, Columbia, Greene, Rens- selaer, Schoharie, Sullivan, and Ulster.
District IV-Counties of Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, St. Lawrence, Saratoga, Schenectady, Warren, and Washington.
District V-Counties of Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, One- ida, Onondaga, and Oswego.
District VI-Counties of Broome, Chemung, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Madison, Otsego, Schuyler, Tioga, and Tompkins.
District VII-Counties of Cayuga, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, and Yates.
District VIII-Counties of Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chau- tauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, and Wyoming.
District IX-Counties of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rock- land, and Westchester.
THE SHRIEVALITY OF YORKSHIRE AND SUBSEQUENT COUNTY DIVISIONS.
In New Netherland the political divisions were only cities and towns. But when the English took possession in 1664 it was planned to organize county divisions, somewhat
880
COURTS AND LAWYERS
after the English system of shires. Still, inasmuch as the conditions of capitulation of New Amsterdam by Governor Stuyvesant stipulated for the continuance of the Dutch legal code, and courts of the schout, burgomaster and schepens, in predominantly Dutch regions, the English plans had to be re- stricted, at first to regions near New York. Thus, the one county or shire, created in 1665 was Yorkshire. It com- prised Long Island, Staten Island and part of the present county of Westchester.
Accordingly, only the towns of Brooklyn, Bushwick, East- hampton, Flatbush, Flatlands, Flushing, Gravesend, Hemp- stead, Huntington, Jamaica, Newtown, New Utrecht, Oyster Bay, Seatalcot, Southampton, Southold and Westchester were asked to send delegates to the Hempstead Convention of Feb- ruary-March, 1665, at which the Duke's Laws were made the legal code of the province of New York, enforcable, however, at that time only in the ridings of Yorkshire.
For judicial purposes this district, or sheriffalty, was di- vided as follows: The East Riding comprised the present county of Suffolk; the West Riding comprised Staten Island, Kings County, Newtown, and part of Westchester; the North Riding comprised all the present county of Queens except Newtown. One high sheriff was appointed, with jurisdiction over the three ridings. Those appointed were: William Wells, March 1I, 1665; Robert Coe, in 1669; John Manning, in 1671 ; Silvester Salisbury, 1674; Philip Wells, 1675; Thomas Willet, 1676; Richard Betts, 1678; John Youngs, 1680. Under the Duke's Laws a Court of Assize was composed of the Gov- ernor, members of his Council, high sheriff, and such justices as could attend its annual session. A Court of Sessions was held in each of the three ridings of Yorkshire three times each year, a jury of seven men being drawn from the town over- seers within the riding for minor cases. Capital cases re- quired a jury of twelve. The inferior court was the town
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.