|
THE CHAIRMAN: I think it is rather
difficult for the Chair to advise you as to
that, except in a very limited way. All
cases at law exceeding the Jurisdictional
amount prescribed by law, to the Chair
would mean all cases at law in which the
amount involved exceeds such amount as
the legislature hereafter shall say by law.
In other words, the legislature would under
this have the right to say that you could
not have a right of removal in cases at
law if the amount involved was less than
a certain amount. This would mean you
would have the right to removal if the
amount involved was more than that
amount.
I could not possibly explain to you the
difference between law and equity without
taking much more time than could possibly
be devoted, and even then I do not know
that I could do it adequately. It is one of
the things lawyers know instinctively and
have a great deal of difficulty explaining.
Essentially the equity cases are cases such
as divorce cases, mortgage foreclosure
cases, injunction cases, receivership cases,
cases involving matters other than damage
suits and property rights in the sense of
ejectment cases or suits on contract. All
other cases are cases at law. That is a
very inaccurate, very inadequate explana-
tion of the difference but it gives you some
vague idea.
Are you ready for the question?
Delegate Cicone.
DELEGATE CICONE: Mr. Chairman,
I would like to speak in opposition to this,
if I may. I am not an attorney, but as I
have said before, I have worked in law
offices for a long time and I have heard it
stated here that the great concern is for
the litigants, which may be very well, but
also I see as the danger of this, lawyers
removing a case until they get the judge
they want. I know the argument now is
that we have assignment clerks, but be-
lieve me, it can be done, and I have seen
it used for just that purpose. I know in
preparing cases, and in helping to prepare
them and have them ready to go to trial,
with witnesses coming in from out of state,
and then for no particular reason at all, it
is an absolutely known fact, that these
cases have been postponed just for that
reason. I know this has been done. I think
this is dangerous and it could be done and
used by the lawyers for themselves as
much as for the litigants.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Weide-
meyer, the Chair wants to ask a question
for the purpose of clarification. I do not
|
see how the matter can be cleared by a
quick amendment but it may very well be
a matter that the Committee on Style can
point out. The Parliamentarian has called
my attention to the fact that the use of the
word "Jurisdictional" in this context is
quite inappropriate and the Chair agrees
with him. You do not mean Jurisdictional
amount, because that would refer to the
amount establishing the jurisdiction of the
court. Can we have you indicate, if such is
your intention, that you do not mean Juris-
dictional amount in that sense but rather
you mean such amount as shall be pre-
scribed by law as determinative of whether
or not the right of removal does or does
not exist? Is that the intent?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: I think
it is because that follows our old language
and that is our intent.
THE CH AIRMA N : The Chairman of the
Committee on Style please not for the in-
formation of the Committee that the use
of the words "Jurisdictional amount" in
lines 7 and 8 are not intended to refer to
the amounts involved, which establish the
jurisdiction of the court, but are intended
instead to indicate such amount as shall be
fixed by the General Assembly as being
determinative of the right of removal pre-
scribed in this section.
For what purpose does Delegate James
rise?
DELEGATE JAMES: Mr. Chairman, I
would like to point out several things about
this proposal. I will be very brief.
THE CHAIRMAN: You are speaking in
opposition to the amendment?
DELEGATE JAMES: Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: You may proceed.
DELEGATE JAMES: A number of
things come to my mind about this. It is
almost as the Supreme Court said in one
case, this is a parade of horribles. Land
goes through equity proceedings. Almost
anything that can happen to a person can
happen to a piece of land. You have mort-
gage foreclosure cases, you have partition
proceedings, creditors' bills. You have situ-
ations where interests are involved. You
must go to court possibly to get a piece
of land sold because there are different
interests involved. There are any number
of things, lunacy proceedings, variety pro-
ceedings and that sort of thing coming
under equity proceedings. As I interpret
this, any one of these cases on proper mo-
tion can be removed to another court, and
|
