The New York Court of Appeals. whole, were decided by a majority of one out of five commissioners. Of these thirteen, six were reversals, so that in five per cent of the entire number one commissioner reversed the Supreme Court of three judges. The dissenting opinions cover seventy-six pages of six hundred and thirty-two, or about thir teen per cent. The Commission decided about one thousand cases in five years, re ported in five vol umes.
 | An image should appear at this position in the text. To use the entire page scan as a placeholder, edit this page and replace "{{missing image}}" with "{{raw image|The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 02.pdf/378}}". Otherwise, if you are able to provide the image then please do so. For guidance, see Wikisource:Image guidelines and Help:Adding images. |  |
During the same period the Court decided about three times as many, em bracing fourteen vol umes, with a far greater degree of harmony. It is worthy of note that one of the cases in which the Commis sion was unanimous (Merch. & Trad. Bank v. Dakin, 51 N. Y. 519), was one to which the Court decided ex actly the contrary (Thurber v. Blanck, 50 N. Y. 80)! It is safe to say that the profession want no more commissions. The new Court of Appeals was at once ROBERT called on to construe a new system of juris prudence, based on the most radical changes. Not only did the questions raised by the Code of Procedure come before it, but the Married Women's Acts of 1848 and 1849, supplemented by those of 1860 and 1862, brought up many puzzling inquiries. These were followed by the numerous laws allow ing parties to be witnesses in their own be half. In all these matters this State was a pioneer of reform and a constantly advancing innovator. It soon became apparent that the new court could not keep up with its new busi-
339
ness. In 1874 appeals were limited to cases involving at least five hundred dollars, exclu sive of costs, unless certified by the general term of the Supreme Court to involve impor tant questions of law. But this proved un equal to the emergency. A larger limitation has been urged, but the bar are strongly op posed to any increase. In 1888 a constitutional amendment was adopted authorizing the governor, on the certificate of the Court of Appeals that there is a necessity there for, to designate seven judges of the Supreme Court to sit as a sepa rate body in aid of the court until the court shall certify that there is no longer need of their services. Accord ingly the governor ap pointed Messrs. David S. Follett, George B. Bradley, Joseph Pot ter, Irving G. Vann, Albert Haight, Alton B. Parker, Charles F. Brown, who are known as the second divi sion of the Court of Appeals. These are EARL. gentlemen of high character, fine attain ments and abilities, and most of them have had long judicial experience. Their Chief is Judge Follett, one of the most accom plished judicial scholars of the State. They have performed a large amount of labor in a very commendable manner. As a whole, the quality of their decisions, I think, is much better than that of the old Commission. But it is apparent that this contrivance is but a makeshift, and that there must be a permanent court, numerous enough to sit all the time by turns or to sit part of the time in divisions, in order to keep up with
