Luther

By the Court,

This was an action instituted before the court of First Instance for the district of San Francisco, for the recovery of seaman's wages, amounting to the sum of $166 *16 80, and judgment was rendered for the appellee in the sum of $100.

The 4th sec. of the 6th art. of the constitution of this state, provides that, “The supreme court shall have appellate juris- “ diction in all cases where the matter in dispute exceeds two “ hundred dollars, when the legality of any tax, toll, or impost, “ or municipal fine is in question.”

The matter in dispute was the recovery of $166 80, and the question is at once suggested whether this court has jurisdiction. If it had been intended by the' framers of the constitution to give this court jurisdiction in cases in which the amount in controversy was less than $200, pending before the adoption of the constitution, and the enactment of laws repealing the then existing laws, exceptions would have been incorporated into that instrument to that effect. It does not appear that the 1st, 2d, and 3d sections of the schedule will confer jurisdiction in such cases. The 1st sec. provides that, “ all laws in force at the “ time of the adoption…

(dissenting.) I do not doubt that the court of Second Instance, under the Mexican system of laws, would have had jurisdiction of this appeal. It may be conceded that no appeal would lie, except where the laws had been violated, which regulate the mode of proceeding. But this appeal is brought for the very reason that the laws have been violated which regulate the mode of proceeding. Without entering into a minute examination of the different clauses of the constitution, I will merely say, that taking all the provisions which bear upon the point under consideration together, they confer upon this court appellate jurisdiction over judgments rendered in the court of First Instance, in all cases where the court of Second Instance, under the Mexican system, would have had such jurisdiction. I think that the appeal should be entertained, and dissent from the conclusion to which the majority of the court have arrived.