These courts were however subsequently abolished; the Chancellor was invested with general equity jurisdiction, and the Circuit Judges acted as Vice-Chancellors in their respective circuits.

The Constitution also ordained that the Chancellor should hold his office during good behavior, or until he should attain the age of sixty years.

It further provided that the masters and examiners in Chancery should be appointed by the Governor and Senate for three years, unless sooner removed, and the registers and assistant registers should be appointed by the Chancellor during pleasure. Heretofore the former had been appointed by the Council of Appointment.

In 1752 (Governor Hardy, Chancellor) the officers of the court consisted of two masters, two clerks, one examiner, a register and a sergeant-at-arms, all without salary.'

In 1823 there were five hundred and ten masters and twentyfive examiners; in 1846 there were one hundred and eighty-eight masters and one hundred and sixty-eight examiners.

On the 1st of August, 1823, Nathan Sanford succeeded James Kent as Chancellor; on the 19th of January, 1826, Samuel Jones succeeded Sanford; and on the 22d of April, 1828, Jones was succeeded by Reuben H. Walworth, who continued as Chancellor till the abolishment of the office in 1847.

In January, 1831, a separate Vice-Chancellorship for the first circuit was established by act, in the city of New York, the officer to be appointed by the Governor and Senate, and hold during good behavior, or till the age of sixty. On the 16th of March, following, W. T. McCoun was appointed.

On the 27th of March,

1839, an assistant Vice-Chancellorship for the same circuit was established by act, in the same city, which was to continue for three years from the first Monday of May following, and the appointee to hold for two years from the said first Monday. In April of that year Murray Hoffman was appointed to the office, by the Governor and Senate, pursuant to the act. In 1840 the office was made permanent, and the incumbent directed to hold special terms, as the Chancellor should appoint, out of the city of New York, in addition to the other terms in the city.

1 Smith's History, New York (Carey's ed.), p. 276.

On the 27th of March, 1839, a Vice-Chancellorship for the eighth circuit was also created, the appointment to be made in the same manner and held by the same tenure as the Vice-Chancellorship of the first circuit. In April following, the appointment was conferred on Frederick Whittlesey, of Rochester.

On the 11th of March, 1843, Lewis H. Sanford succeeded Murray Hoffman as Vice-Chancellor of the first circuit, and on the 12th of May, 1846, Mr. Sanford was succeeded by Anthony L. Robert

son.

From and after the first Monday of July, 1847, the Court of Chancery was abolished by the Constitution of 1846. Its powers generally were transferred to the Supreme Court organized under that Constitution, and its records deposited in the office of the clerk of the Court of Appeals.

The Constitution also directed that the Legislature might confer equity jurisdiction in special cases upon the County Judge.

On the 24th of March, 1774, James Jauncey, the younger, was appointed keeper or master of the rolls, books, writs and records of the Court of Chancery. He was empowered also to examine, hear and determine all matters and causes then or thereafter pending in the said Court of Chancery, and in all other things to execute the said office the same as the Master of the Rolls in the High Court of Chancery in England, subject to appeals to the Governor of the Province of New York. No order or decree was to be enrolled until the same was delivered to and signed by the said Governor. The office was during pleasure, the King reserving to himself the appointment of all officers in the said Court of Chancery, as by the letters patent might be claimed to be appointed by the said Jauncey as incident or appurtenant to his office.

As the Revolution broke out about this period, and the court is not alluded to in the Constitution of 1777, no farther mention of it is necessary, except that in 1780 George D. Ludlow (one of the New York Colonial Judges of the Supreme Court, at the commencement of the Revolution, and who, adhering to the cause of the Crown, was considered by its adherents still in office, notwithstanding, under the Constitution adopted by New York in 1777, an entire new bench of Judges had been created) was appointed, by the Crown, Master of the Rolls and Superintendent of Police

on Long Island, "with powers on principles of equity to hear and determine controversies till civil government could take place.”

In 1783 Mr. Ludlow retired to his Majesty's dominions, in New Brunswick.

That branch of Chancery proceedings which relates to the duties of surrogates has an earlier date in the province than the Court of Chancery itself. The College of Nineteen (representing the five Chambers of the Dutch West India Company, as well as the States General of Holland, one of the members of said College being appointed by the latter), ordained in a charter adopted by them in 1640, that the Governor and Council of New Netherlands should, among other matters, act as an Orphan's and Surrogate's Court.

The Court of the Schout, Burgomasters and Schepens, under the administration of Governor Stuyvesant, acted, among its other duties, as a Court of Probate, in taking proofs of last wills and testaments, and exercised jurisdiction over the estates of widows and orphans.1

But in 1665, so great was the number of widows and orphans, consequent upon a massacre committed by the Indians on the whites of Manhattan Island and its vicinity, that the Director-General (Stuyvesant) and Council created a separate court entitled the Court of Orphan Masters, whose duties were similar to those of surrogates of our day. The burgomasters presided over this court at first, but soon afterward were relieved of that duty at their request, and distinct orphan masters were annually appointed. This continued till the transfer of the Province to the English in 1664.

In the "Duke's Laws," provision was made to administer intestates' estates and for the recording of wills and letters of administration. The Court of Sessions in each of the three ridings into which the laws divided the Province, acted as a Court of Probate and a Surrogate's Court, and the Mayor's Court also exercised, occasionally, jurisdiction in matters appertaining to these courts.

The record of wills and other instruments of administration, where the estate exceeded one hundred pounds, was required to be in the city of New York, and the recording office was placed

1 Daly's Judicial Organization of the State.

in charge of the Secretary of the Province, who was Secretary to the Governor. The latter official at length assumed the powers of probate, which were confirmed by an act passed in 1692, which also declared that two freeholders elected in every town should have charge of intestates' estates; likewise that proof of wills should be before the Governor, and letters of administration be granted by him or his delegate. Proof of wills relative to estates in counties adjoining the city of New York was required to be in that city, but in counties more remote the Court of Common Pleas was authorized to take the proof and transmit the proceedings to the record office in New York. A delegate was appointed by the Governor in the above city, who held a Prerogative Court, possessing appellate jurisdiction over the Common Pleas in probate matters and the acts of the two freeholders of the towns.

The Governor also appointed subordinate delegates in various parts of the Province, while the aforesaid freeholders of the towns were also called delegates.

In 1754, the appointment of a Judge of Probate was made, with jurisdiction over the proof of wills and administration of estates, the Prerogative Court still continuing in separate existence.

In 1778 an act was passed divesting the Governor of all powers in the Prerogative and Probate Courts and transferring those powers to the Judge of the Court of Probates of the State, except in the appointment of Surrogates, which appointment was vested in the Council of Appointment.1

In 1787 the Governor and Council were empowered to appoint Surrogates in every county of the State; the Judge of the Court of Probates of the State holding jurisdiction in cases of decease out of the State, or of the decease of non-residents within the State. Appeal also lay to this Court from the Surrogate Courts.

In 1797 (March 10th) it was enacted, that from 1798 the Court of Probates should be held and remain in the city or county of Albany, and the judge and clerk of said court should remove the papers and documents belonging to said court, to and reside in the said city or county.'

1 Act to organize the Government of the State, passed 16th March, 1778. 1 Greenleaf, 17.

3 Greenleaf, 393.

On the 21st March, 1823, the Court of Probates was abolished by act; its records and proceedings were directed to be deposited in the Secretary of State's office, and its jurisdiction was conferred upon the Chancellor. The office of Surrogate, however, was left, and the appointment to it (to continue for four years) vested in the Governor and Senate.

THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE, as it existed prior to 1821, was created by the celebrated ordinance of 1691. It is necessary, however, to go still further back to account for the knowledge of jurisprudence possessed by the colonists, thus enabling them to erect a court which, surviving all the discontents and changes of colonial times, existed for a period of one hundred and thirty years, and in a different form for a quarter of a century longer.

During the administration of Governor Stuyvesant, the people of the province elected eighteen persons, from whom Stuyvesant appointed a body of nine, to confer with him and his Council on public matters. This body becoming dissatisfied, as well as the people generally, with the arbitrary conduct of the Governor (or Director-General, as he was called), designated Adriaen Van Der Donck to prepare memoranda from which a subsequent remonstrance should be drawn to the States-General relative to the complaints of the Colony. Stuyvesant seized the memoranda, temporarily imprisoned Van Der Donck, and expelled him from the body of nine men. He, however, drew a remonstrance, which was laid before the States-General by him and two other delegates, sent to Holland for that purpose. This proceeding eventuated, in 1650, in the erection of a tribunal (after a struggle on the part of Stuyvesant and the Amsterdam Chamber against it), composed of a schout (the presiding officer and sheriff), two burgomasters and five schepens. In addition to executive and legislative duties, this tribunal exercised judicial functions. These were very comprehensive, and appear to have been fully adequate to the administration of justice among the colonists. The proceedings of the tribunal were principally those of arbitration, making it really a

O'Callaghan's History New Netherlands, vol. 2, p. 37.

2 Remonstrance of New Netherland, by Adriaen Van Der Donck. Translated from a copy of the Dutch MSS., by E. B. O'Callaghan, p. 48.