18 N.Y. St. Rep. 919 | City of New York Municipal Court | 1888
Lead Opinion
(after stating the facts as above.) Section 315 of the Code, relating to the jurisdiction of this court, is general in its provisions and does not limit this court in its jurisdiction of the subject-matter as to the amount claimed. Section 316, however, provides that: “In an action wherein the complaint demands judgment for a sum of money only, the sum for which judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff cannot exceed $2,000, exclusive of interest and costs as taxed.” In the case of Roof v. Meyer, 8 Civ. Proc. R. 64, it was held by this court that a claim for more than $2,000 does not oust the court of its jurisdiction, and that a judgment entered for more than that amount, exclusive of interest and costs, is not thereby rendered absolutely void, but may be corrected as an irregularity, being void merely as to the excess. Section 817 of the Code provides: “ AVhere two or more actions in favor of the same plaintiff, against the same defendant, for causes of action which may be joined, are pending in the same court, the court may, in its discretion, by order, consolidate any or all of them into one action.” The plaintiffs contend that a consolidation of the five actions would be unjust to them, inasmuch as they would be compelled to relinquish $3,500 of their claims, that being the excess over the sum of $2,000 for which sum only they would then be entitled to enter judgment if successful upon the trial. If such would the result of the consolidation, the order appealed from would undoubtedly right and proper, and ought to be affirmed. The sole question, then, upon this appeal, is whether or not the plaintiffs would be prejudiced by the consolidation. In other words, whether, upon such consolidation, a judgment could properly be entered by plaintiffs for the aggregate of their claims in the five actions, notwithstanding the limitation contained in section 316 of the Code, supra.
Pitshke, J., concurs.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring.) Justice Ehrlich in his decision herein says: “The statute has fixed the limit of jurisdiction of this court, and the parties may not enlarge it by consent, ” etc., thus evidently basing his decision upon the want of power in the court. The court having acquired jurisdiction in the five actions referred to brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants, think ample power was conferred upon it by section 817 of the Code of Civil Procedure,—which is expressly made applicable to all courts of record by subdivision 6 of section 3347,—to consolidate the five actions. But, inasmuch as by section 817 it is provided that where two or more actions in favor of the plaintiff against the same defendant are pending in the same court the court may in its discretion by order consolidate any or all of them; and inasmuch as the court has not exercised the discretion conferred upon it by the section last cited, I concur with Justice Neiirbas in his opinion herein, and think that the order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and that the matter should be remanded to the special term for such action as the special term justice may in the exercise of his discretion think proper.