Case ID: johns-cas_1/html/0294-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Case against Shepherd.
    After.a verdict, unless a certificate, or order of a judge to stay proceedings be obtained, the party in whose favor the verdict is given, though a case be made, may proceed to enter up judgment.
    After judgment entered, .the court will not hear a motion to set aside a verdict, unless there has been a certificate of a judge, or an order to stay proceedings.
    A party who is dissatisfied with the refusal of the judge to grant an order to stay .proceedings, may .apply at" the next term to the court for-.that purpose.
    Spencer, for the defendant,
    moved to bring on the argument for a new trial in this cause.
    
      Van Vechten,
    
    contra,.objected, because a judgment had been regularly entered, and no order had been obtained to stay proceedings after the verdict.
   Per Curiam.

The true construction of the 4th rule of January term, 1799, is, that the noticé' with a judge’s-' order to stay proceedings, is a substitute for the former practice of a rule'to show causé; and, therefore, if the party neglects, to obtain, or cannot obtain, an' order to stay, proceedings, the. consequence iS, 'that if, when the hearing of the motion is to coiné on, a judgment has been duly entered, he cannot be heard on the motion ; for we will not hear an argument to set aside a verdict, default, of inquisition, after a judgment ■ has been duly entered.'

There is- nothing in the rules of the court' to prevent a party, who is dissatisfied with the refusal of a judge to grant a certificate, or order to stay proceedings, from applying to the court for that purpose: '

Though the defendant is rioty therefore, strictly entitled to be heard, yet, as there appears to have - been- a misconstruction of the. rule, we . will,,in the present instance, hear the motion. 
      
      
         A case made by the unsuccessful party, to set aside a verdict or non-suit, is not of itself a stay ,of proceedings unless, some question is reserved ; Statute of 1832, (p. 188, § 1.) Savage, v. Hicks, 2 Wend. 246; but it is necessary to procure an order for that purpose from- the judge, who tried the' cause. Id. See also, 2 Gra. Prác. 2d ed. 334. If this be refused, an appeal may be taken to the court, and it is enough, with a view to a motion for a new trial, that the party make out a doubtful case. Wright v. Wright et al., 1 Cowen, 598.