Case ID: cole-cas_1/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Post Cue", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hoyt and Bennett vs. Campbell.
    IN Error on Certiorari. The Cause was at Issue in Law in July Vacation 1799, but the Plaintiff’s Attorney suffered October Term to pass without having noticed it for Argument.
    
    The Defendant’s Attorney then served a Notice to argue the Cause in January Term. Neither the Plaintiffs, or their Attorney, or any Counsel for them, appearing on the Notice, Judgment of Affirmative passed against them as of Course.
    
    The Plaintiff 's Attorney residing in New-York, and not having an Agent in Albany, the Service of the Notice was by affixing it in the Clerk's Office there, and it did not, until shortly before the last Term, come to his Knowledge, either that the Notice had been served, or that Judgment of Af-firmance had passed, and in the meantime the Plaintiffs, on being informed of the Judgment, either by the Defendant or his Attorney, paid the Coils on it, and also settled as to the Demand against them in respect to the Suit in the Court below before the Justice.
    On these Facts, the Plaintiffs moved in the last Term to set the Judgment aside, submitting two Questions to the Court: first, Whether the Defendant was entitled to notice the Cause for Argument; and if the Opinion of the Court should be against them on this Question? then, secondly, Whether, under the Circumstances of the Case, the judgment may not be set aside in order to give them an Opportunity to avail themselves in this Court, of their Causes of Error if they can support them.
   Post Cue

- With respect to the first Question it is to be stated, that heretofore, in all Cases where there was not to be a Decision by the Court, until there had been previously an Argument between the Parties, being, except Motions to set aside Proceedings, the same with our present enumerated Motions or Cases, the Arguments were in writing, and if either Party delayed for a Term to deliver in an Argument, the opposite Party took a Rule against him to argue by the next Term or be precluded, and on his Default the Court would proceed to examine and decide the Cause on the Arguments as they then were, or if there had not been any Argument delivered in by the Party in Default, then on the ex parte Argument to be thereafter prepared and delivered in by the Party who had taken the Rule; as for Instance, in Case of a Writ of Error, if after the Parties were at Issue in Law, the Plaintiff delayed, then the Defendant would take a Rule against him; if the Plaintiff had delivered in his Argument, he would take a Rule against the Defendant to argue in Answer; if the Defendant had delivered in his Argument, he would in this last Case take a Rule against the Plaintiff to argue in reply, and on the Default of the respective Parties, the Court would, in the first Case on the ex parte Argument of the Defendant, and without any Argument on the Part of the Plaintiff, in the second Case on the Argument delivered in by the Plaintiff, and without any Argument on the Part of the Defendant, and in the third Case on the Argument delivered in by the Plaintiff, and the Argument in answer delivered in by the Defendant and without any Argument in reply by the Plaintiff, take up the Cause for Examination and Decision ; but the Practice of making Decisions or Adjudications on ex parte Arguments or Hearings being now wholly done away, and the Substitute for it being, that every Party is apprised that from his Default to appear and argue, or in other words to suggest generally at least the Principles of his Right, he will be pre-fumed to have renounced it, and so to have consented to what is claimed against him, and that Judgment will thereupon pass for the opposite Party as of course, the Law will therefore, from the Necessity of the Thing, imply that there must, be a Mean for a Party whereby he may still have it in his Power to prevent his Opponent from delaying on his Part to bring the Cause before the Court for their Opinion, and the one which the Defendant has taken in the present Instance, of proceeding by a notice of a Motion, in the Nature of a Rule to let the Cause down for Argument, being equally sit and advisable with any other to be adopted or provided as a Substitute for the former Practice of proceeding by the Rule of Preclusion, and the Plaintiffs, the Party entitled in the present Case to open or begin, having delayed for a Term to notice the Cause for Argument, it must be adjudged regular in the Defendant for him then to notice it.

The Plaintiffs’ Motion, however, as far as it rests on an Irregularity in the Defendant, confiding in a supposed Want of Right in him to notice the Cause for Argument, may be decided against them on this Ground, namely, that notwithstanding a Notice may be irregular or defective, or in any other respect improper, yet if there has been a due Service of it, the Party on whom it has been served, must appear to oppose the Motion, otherwise, as has been already stated, his Consent to it, or a Renunciation of his Right to oppose it, will be prefumed from his Absence or Silence equally as if the Notice had been perfect, and the Motion proper in the Case; and that it is not to be expected the Court will, without the Appearance and Suggestion of the Party, examine farther than to be satisfied there has been a competent Service of the Notice, comprehending as well the Manner, as the Time, of Service-Indeed the Intent of the 7th Rule of January Term 1799, was, that there might in future be a clear Understanding on the whole of the Subject to which this first Question relates.

With respect to the second Question, it will suffice to observe, that although there was a sufficient Service of the Notice, yet it did not come to the Knowledge of the Plaintiff's Attorney until after the Defendant had obtained the Effect of it; so that there doubtlefs will have been an Hardship on the Plaintiffs, if the substantial Justice or real Merits of the Case is with them, and if there is a reasonable Excuse for their Attorney in not having an Agent in Albany at the Time, but as these matters have not been shewn to the Court, they cannot interpole ; the Plaintiffs therefore are to take nothing by their Motion, and to pay Cofts to the Defendant in opposing it.