Case ID: njl_70/html/0577-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Garrison, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM GARBETT v. LYDIA M. Van F. MOUNTFORD.
    Submitted December 7, 1903
    Decided February 23, 1904.
    A rule made by a justice of the Supreme Court in vacation, discharging a rule to show cause why a writ of attachment issued out of' the Supreme Court should not be quashed, cannot be reviewed by the court upon motion; such proceeding was either nugatory, in which case the rule to show cause has not been heard, or else the single justice heard the rule to show cause, by consent, for the practice branch of the court, under section 25 of the Practice act, in which case his decision is not 'subject to review.
    On motion to vacate a rule discharging a rule to show cause.
    Before Justices Garrison and Garreison.
    For the motion, S. Slonger Iszard.
    
    Contra, Wesley B. Stout.
    
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

Counsel have argued by briefs a motion to vacate a rule issued by a justice of this court in vacation discharging a rule to show cause why a writ of attachment issued out of this court should not be quashed.

The motion is improper and brings nothing before ús. Either the proceeding before the single justice was nugatory, in which ease the rule to show cause has not been disposed of, or else the justice heard the rule by consent, sitting for this branch of the Supreme Court, in which case his decision is not subject to review. The matter is not one of those that can be reviewed as a motion made before a single justice, as was the case in Key v. Paul, 32 Vroom 133.

The motion is denied, with costs.