From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Reubenstein v. Silberfeld

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jul 1, 1898
24 Misc. 201 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)

Opinion

July, 1898.

N.S. Levy, for plaintiff.

M. Strassman, for defendant.


The justice's return shows that issue was joined herein on September 3, 1897, and that the cause was thereupon adjourned to September 29, 1897, and again, from time to time, until October 13, 1897, when the trial took place. The stenographer's minutes, which form part of the record, show that on September 3, 1897, "counsel for defendant asked for a trial by jury, which request the court refused to grant, on the ground that it was made after issue had been joined, and after an adjournment of the case had been taken. Counsel for defendant excepted to the ruling." The Appellate Term must go by the record, which, as we have seen, shows that issue was joined and a demand made for a jury trial on the same day, to-wit, September 3, 1897. Presumably, therefore, in the absence of anything to show the contrary, both took place at the same time, within the meaning of the statute. Section 1372 of the Consolidation Act, as amended by the Laws of 1891, provides as follows: "A trial by jury must be demanded at the time of the joining of an issue of fact, and is waived if neither party then demand it." The defendant claims that, promptly upon the joinder of issue herein, he made his demand for a jury trial; and the record appears to sustain his assertion. It is well settled that where a party exercises his right to a trial by jury, the justice cannot take it away from him. Proceedings in District Courts must conform to the statute, and a violation of the statute renders a resulting judgment erroneous. These courts of limited jurisdiction can assume no power by implication, but must keep within the powers expressly given to them; and if they go beyond them, their acts are void. See Blumburg v. Briggs, 10 N.Y. St. Repr. 242; Equitable Gas L. Co. v. French, 10 Misc. 750; Schwartz v. Wechler, 2 id. 71.

We are of opinion that the judgment should be reversed, upon the exception here presented; and, having reached this conclusion, we are not called upon to discuss the other questions raised upon this appeal. Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present: BEEKMAN, P.J., GILDERSLEEVE and GIEGERICH, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.


Summaries of

Reubenstein v. Silberfeld

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jul 1, 1898
24 Misc. 201 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
Case details for

Reubenstein v. Silberfeld

Case Details

Full title:REUBEN REUBENSTEIN, Respondent, v . SOL. SILBERFELD, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Jul 1, 1898

Citations

24 Misc. 201 (N.Y. App. Term 1898)
52 N.Y.S. 703

Citing Cases

People ex Rel. Jaffe v. Fitzpatrick

Possessing only such powers as are expressly conferred by the Legislature, the court must in every instance…

Sherwood v. New York Telephone Co.

It will be seen that a jury trial may be secured upon the demand of either party, and that a jury trial is…