Case ID: johns-cas_1/html/0471-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stansbury, Assignee of the Sheriff of, &c., against Durell. 
    
    After the order of the court in a cause, a further order of a judge, at his chambers, on the same matter, is irregular.
    When the proceedings in a cause are stayed on payment of costs, it is the duty of the defendant to seek the plaintiff, and tender the costs.
    Special bail need not justify, unless required.
    The defendant, at the last October term, obtained a rule to stay the proceedings on the bail bond, no person appearing to oppose the motion. At the last January term, application was made to vacate the rule of the preceding term, on the ground of a want of notice; and because one of the plaintiffs was not truly named in the bail-piece, which had been filed in the original cause, and the,bail had not justified. The court ordered, that the cause should be opened and be considered in the same situation as at the commencement of the last term, and that proceedings in the suit on the bail bond be stayed, on payment of costs, the bail justifying, if required, the name in the bail-piece to be corrected, and the defendant to confess judgment in the original suit.
    The defendants attorney, supposing that the order of the court extended no farther than to vacate the rule of October term, applied to a judge during the last vacation, and obtained an order generally to stay all proceedings to this term, which was regularly served on the plaintiff’s attorney, who, considering it as irregular, proceeded in the bail bond suit. •
    * Riggs, for the defendant,
    now moved to set aside [*397] all the proceedings since the last term, as being contrary to the judge’s order, and that all proceedings on the bail bond be stayed oh the terms offered at the last term.
    
      S. Jones, jun. contra.
    
      
       S. C., C. C. 99.
    
   Per Curiam.

As all the proceedings had been stayed at the last term, upon certain conditions, those conditions should have been first complied with, before the defendant could be entitled to the benefit of the rule ; and it was certainly irregular to apply to a judge, at his chambers, for- any further order. It was the duty of the defendant to have sought the plaintiff, and tendered the costs. But as there appears to have been some misapprehension of the rule at the last term, proceedings shall now be stayed on the same -conditions as at the last term, and on payment of all subsequent costs.

Rule granted accordingly. 
      
      
        а) See Jaclcson ex dem. Pinkney v. Pell. 19 Johns. R. 270, Cathcart v. Cannon, supra, 220. Southerland, assignee, &c. v. Sheffield, 2 Wend. 293. Gilliland v. Morrell, 1 Caines’ R. 154. 2 Gra. Prac. 2d ed. 287, 288.