Delaware State reporter., 1853-04-26

The opposite party then sued in the Superior
Court, with view to recover the balance.
That Court held that the settlement of the
account was an acknowledgment under the act
Of limitations, and that there was, therefore, no
bar; intimating, however, at the same time,
that the party ought not to have been COM
peled to settle that which was inclndcd within |
the terms Of the former account. This shows
will arise under thisaplan. There
was no mode of getting at the difficulty in this
case, and have known other cases of similar
character 1t will thus be perceived what
arises from making one tribunal
court Of last as well as first resort on important
rights Of daily and constant occurrence, because,
though litigation may be diminished in reference
to matters arising out of the ordinary tlansac-
tions of business, YOU cannot prevent men
from dying-there will be orphans-therc will
be executors, administrators and guardians,
and their accounts must be settlcd-qucstions
will arise in reference to them. You have now,
for such cases, court of last resort, composed
of the same tribunal which really hears it i'll the
first instance; and yet, your general court OF
last resort for all other purposes, is different
tribunal. The effect of having two courts of
last resort, i'll the same State, is necessarily TO
produce incongrious decisions, and this is the
9lUullu uH WHICH uVS1c tlittt
shall be made.
Mr.. BATES. Mr.. President, the case which
the honorable member from Wilmington has
mentioned, is undoubtedly yeryhard one and
one which can scarcely be accounted for on any
other presumption than that the Judges Of the
Orphans Court were corrupt. Still, sir, it is a
question in my mind whether there should be
an appeal from an Appellate Court. The exist
ing Constitution gives to executors and admnis-
traitors in relation TO their accounts and to those
who claim under those accounts, the right of
appeal from the REGISTER to the Orphans Court,
but denies any further right of appeal. sub
nit to the learned member from Wilmington,
whether his object would not be equally attained
by giving to parties supposed to be injured by
4 the decision of the Register, right of appeal
directly to the Court Of Appeals or the Orphans
4 Court at their election.
Mr. BAYARD Mr.. President, I do not care
about the form, my object is to attain the result
that the principles of law which govern the
rights of property in the State, shall be finally
determined by the same tribunal as an Appel
4 late Coult@ | do not think there is much i'll the
objection of the honorable gentleman from Dover,
las to this being an appeal from an Appellate
Court. The Orphans Court is am Appellate
Court nomnally, and only nominally. There
would be no harm and no impropliety in allow
ing an appeal from an Appellate Court. 1t i
done every day in other cases. In the lmiScc
States Courts, you appeal from the District L
the Circuit Courts, and from the Circuit TO TN
Supreme Court. In the State of New York, yol
appeal from the Court of original jurisdiction t,
the Supreme Court, and from the Suprcm
Court to the Court Of Appeals. In England yol
appeal from the Court of Kings Bench TO th
Court of EXchcquer Chamber, and from til
Exchcquer Chamber to the House Of Lords. !
second Appellate Court is nothing novel am
nothing uncommon. In this case | do not wis
to dcrange the system connected with til
Registers Court, but considering it as merely
, nominal Court and that the first hearing i
point of fact, is in the Orphans Court, | though
| it would be proper TO allow a general right
+ appeal from that Court The learned gcntlema
! very well knows that however nominally
may be a Court of Appeals, it is really an
literally a Court of first instance though
! therefore, it would be better to allow a gcncr;
right of appeal from the Orphans Court !
most cases the parties would not desire a
appeal, and then proceeding in the Orphans
|. Court would be more expeditions than calryin
up an appeal from the Register to the Court
i Appeals. 0ftentimcs ana appeal might be take
from the Rcgistcrto the Court of Appeals mercl
: for delay, but there could be no such object
relation to the Orphans Court. BY allowing a
! appeal as | have proposed, the system will
i harmonious.
q lean readily understand the reason why it w
5, originally provided that there should be an a
II 'pcal to the Orphans Court from tic Register.
:, was founded, beyond all question. in the id
c which existed when the Constitution Of II!
Ic was framed, that what was called the Register
I. Court should be held by a man learned in t
$ law, and that it should be regular Court
t. is called in the Constitution the Register
s. Court, but we know that in point of fact it
S. not and never has been, and never will be, an
"a thing more than an accounting office. 1t is II
ic Court as was in contemplation by the frame
III Of the Constitution of 1872. For the rcaso
to which have given, prefer the amendment
III have offered, to that suggested by the honora|
in gentleman from Dover
lc Mr.. BATES. The only objection which c
to conceive to it is this. Parties who arc concern
b. in administration and guardian accounts ;
~ very often poor, and the right of appeal mig
in he abused by those better off, who might app
m from court to court till moro than the amount
Is, controversy would be exhausted. Iti mdou
ut cdly true, that great wrong is sometimes do
under the present system. have seen instant
en- of it, but nothing so gross, however, as the c;
al cited by the learned gentleman. L have oftt
al in my practice, seen the necessity Of an app
or from the Judges of the Orphans Court, acli
nd upon an appeal from the Register. do N
or therefore, propose to make any objection TO
:" amendment; but, in order TO give time for ref
lie ton and consideration upon it, move that
MS lie on the table for the present.
ne Mr. BAYARD. | do not know what arc W
n,y rules here, on the subject, but generally, in p
nc liamentary practice, motion to lay an amer
ler ment on the table carries with it the whole 81
au icct-mattcr. have no objection to laying it
nc The table; in fact, would prefer it, bccaus
na feel somewhat embarrassed as regards amel
oi' mcnts, which, in one event, should desire
on offer, but in another event should abstain fl
ds' offering. If no adjustment, which meets
III views of principle can be made in regard to
'ln legislative report, | shall feel myself in pt
mas ton in which it would be needless for me to Il
I, any further part in the proceedings of the
~ vention. | am unwilling to intcrposc
on, on opinions as to any otherpart Of the Constitut
rs which the Convention may think proper
L I,,t hot 1