Case ID: johns_20/html/0124-01.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

Van Ness against Hamilton and others.
    Where a ment^of^the Court, on departy leave to tain specified ment of costs; judge, at his chambers, or of the Recorder of the city of New-Yorle. extending the time allowed b.y the Court, is irregular tmd void.
    
      WELLS, for the plaintiff, moved to vacate two several orders ofthe Recorder of the city of New- York, made in the above cause; and for a rule that a writ of inquiry of damages issue iu the cause, to be executed before one of the Judges °f this Court. He read an affidavit, stating, that, at the last January term, the Court, on demurrer, overruled the special pleas put in by the defendants; but gave them leave to amend the pleas in forty days, on payment of costs. That, a few days before the expiration of the forty days, the fie-verier (Mr. RiJeer) granted an order, extending the time to amend forty days more ; and on the 15 th of April last, the Recorder granted a second order, extending the time to amend to the last day of the present term, to give the defendants an opportunity of applying to the Court to point out and specify to them such further particulars, not referred to in the opinion delivered by the Chief Justice, on the decision on the demurrer, wherein the pleas, in the judgment of the Court, were considered defective.
    
      Wells contended,
    that the orders of the Recorder were wholly irregular and void. In Stansbury v. Durell, (1 Johns. Cas. 396.) the Court decided, that where proceedings are stayed upon certain conditions, those conditions must first be complied with, before the defendant can be entitled to the benefit of the rule ; and that it was irregular to apply to a Judge, at his chambers, for any further order.
    
      J. Hamilton, contra,
    objected, that the plaintiff should have first applied to the Recorder to revoke the orders, &c. He read a petition of the defendants, pursuant to a notice given to the plaintiff’s attorney, praying the Court to point out and specify such further particulars, not referred to in the opinion of the Court on the demurrer, wherein the pleas are, in the judgment of the Court, defective; and to allow the defendants a reasonable time, after they shall receive the instruction of the Court, to amend their pleas conformably thereto.
   Per Curiam.

The Recorder of the city of .New-YorJc had no jurisdiction whatever to grant these orders. The time allowed by the Court was one of the conditions on which we granted the defendants leave to amend their pleas, when judgment was given for the plaintiff, on the demurrer. It was res judicata. The Recorder had no power or authority to vary the judgment of this Court. His orders, therefore, were null and void; and we grant the motion to vacate them 5 and we give the defendants forty days, from the end of the present term, to plead anew, upon the terms and conditions 0f ru¡e jn January term last, without costs on either side.

Rule accordingly.