amount. But now my colleague proposes
having stated to the house that four-fifths of
the jurisdiction has been taken away and
given to the court of common pleas by the
amendment I made, necessarily burdening the
court of common pleas by so much and re
lieving the superior court by so much, to take
away all equity jurisdiction from the superior
court and still further disencumber if and pat
the duties upon another court. I think with
the $500 taken from its jurisdiction, this
court can easily transact its business; and I
think it is a fair distribution. Judge King I
have no doubt can get through with his busi-
ness. He always has time to spare, and is
always obliging to attorneys, ready to try
their cases when they are ready, with noth-
ing else to do. I think this would relieve
the superior court of so much of its jurisdic-
tion that at any rate I am utterly opposed to
taking from the superior court the equity
jurisdiction which it has had ever since there
has been a court in the city of Baltimore.
The amendment was rejected.
The amendment submitted by Mr. DANIEL,
as modified by him, and amended, was adopt-
ed in the following form:
"Section 28. The superior court of Balti-
more city shall have jurisdiction over all suits
where the debt or damage claimed exclusive of
interest, shall exceed the sum of one thousand
dollars, and in case any plaintiff or plaintiffs
shall recover less than the sum or value of one
thousand dollars, he or they shall be allowed
or adjudged to pay costs in the discretion of the
court. The said court shall also have juris-
diction as a court of equity within the limits
of the said city, and in all other civil cases
which are not hereinafter assigned to the
court of common pleas, and shall also have
jurisdiction in all cases of appeals from the
commissioner for opening streets; provided,
all cases now pending on the law side of said
court, where the debt or damage claimed is
less than one thousand dollars, shall be pros-
ecuted to final judgment in said court, as
though its juridiction had not been changed."
No further amendment was offered.
The next section was read as follows :
"Section 29. Either of said judges may
sit alone for the trial of causes appealed from
the decisions of justices of the peace, for the
disposition of all formal and uncontested
business, and such other business as the par-
ties litigant shall consent to try before a sin-
gle judge; but it shall be the right of any
party to an original cause pending in said
court under such rules and regulations as the
court may prescribe, to require the presence
of at least two of the judges of said court at
the trial thereof. ' '
Mr. THOMAS submitted the following amend-
ment ;
Strike out the section and insert the fol-
lowing :
"Section 29. The court of common pleas |
shall have civil jurisdiction in all suits where
' the debt or damage claimed, exclusive of in-
terest, shall be over one hundred dollars, and
shall not exceed one thousand dollars; and
shall also have jurisdiction in all cases of ap-
peal in civil cases from the judgment of jus-
tices of the peace in the said city, and shall
have jurisdiction in all applications for the
benefit of the insolvent laws of this State,
and the supervision and control of the trus-
tees thereof."
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. That amendment seems
to differ a good deal from the printed amend-
ment. That provides for jurisdiction in
cases of replevin.
Mr, THOMAS. Yes, sir; I struck that out
for this reason. I was afraid if we gave the
court of common pleas jurisdiction in re-
plevin cases over one hundred dollars, per-
haps it would increase its jurisdiction too
much; and I thought it might be better to
let the jurisdiction of the superior court over
replevin cases remain where it is.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I cannot see any sense
in making the limit in the superior court $100
in one thing and $1000 in everything else.
There is another anomaly about it. That is
in the matter of lien cases, under the me-
chanics' lien laws.
Mr, STIRLING. I do not see any harm in
that. Under the old constitution the supe-
rior court was made a sort of residuary leg-
atee for all jurisdiction not carved out else-
where. It has jurisdiction in any case where
it has not been specially taken away from
them. All jurisdiction except that given
to the court of common pleas specially em-
braced between $100 and $500, goes under
the general clause to the superior court, and
in consequence of that the court of appeals
have decided that all replevin suits, all suits
for the enforcement of magistrates' liens, and
all special cases like that, went to the supe-
rior court, it seems to me there is some rea-
son about it. It is better to have the law of
replevin, or the magistrates' lien law, ad-
ministered in one court than two; and for
this reason. Magistrates' liens are a matter
of record. It is in the land record office,
which is exercised by the clerk of the supe-
rior court. If you take that jurisdiction
away from the superior court, and give it to
the court of common pleas, it will involve a
change of the records from the land record
office.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I do not see the force
of the last objection; for to ascertain whether
there is any incumbrance, it is necessary to
examine the records of both courts, one as
much as the other.
Mr. STIRLING. Yon have to find out
whether there is any judgment against the
man; and to find liens against the estate yon
would have to look in two records. You can
very often satisfy yourself whether there is |
