The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-03

same court, although b cfore different Judge. So
under the system OF Vice Chancellor and Chancellor
in our State, there was an appellate jurisdiction In
the Chancellor, but the cause in the same court.
1t was in chancery, though before Vice Chancel-
lor. The appeal was in fact rehearing. There
was NO such procee ling a. petition Of appeal, an
answer, or any of the regular proceedings Of an
original suit A notice Of sppea! to the clerk and
dent made default on such appeal, the decree be-
low was affirmed without argument. In this re-
spect the course Of the Court Of Errors was the
same, but under an express rule. In the English
the decree could not Be affirmed without argument
(Honman's Practice 2, p. T-62) Again, the cause
upon an appeal might be RENTED TO the Vice Chan
Cellor, or retained and decided finally by the Chan
celor, as they thought 1T, and because 1t was the
same cause on appeal or rehearing before another
Judge. think that the case Of an appeal from q
judgment at special term TO the general term is still
stronger. Justice Mitchell has examined with great
care the relation Of an act Of Judge at special
term to that of the general term. He comments
he clearly shows, apprehend, that the action at
special term is that Of the Supreme Court - entire
ly as If it were at general term-that such action
is subject to review in the same court, by two or
more Judges at general term. In short, the special
term is the Supreme Court. Mason Va. Jones,
general term Code Rep. r. 8. 337.) Although,
then, the Code has declared that the only mode Of
reviewing decision shall be by an appeal, it only
It has not changed the essential nature of appeal
In case like this It il mode Of revision by
more Judges than one in the same court, of a
judgment of such court. It appears to me
70 be inaccurate to consider such proceeding
Is new action. it Is not SUCH then the principal
Argument Of Justice Watson in Enos vs. Thomas, is
Dbbed OF its force. The power To extend the time
for commencing an action beyond six years, will not
follow from the power of enlarging the time to
appeal from Judgment at special term. In John
son vs.. Yeomans, 8 Howard, 40, Justice Shankland
expressly ruled that an appeal from the special to
the general term was not new action, but was one
pending In the same court He takes the distinc-
ton between such an appeal and writ Of error to
remove cause from an inferior to superior court.
Judgment affirmed without costs.
John +. Iuln,an vs. the Hudson River Railroad
been granted TO prohibit the defendants from issu-
ing tickets to emigrants at their office in Canal
street on the ground that it was injurious to the
plaintiffs interests, by causing his customers to
leave him. and was public nuisance. The defend
ants, however, showed by adavits that the nuisance
was caused by the emigIahts themselves, crowding
arounA the office in unnecessary numbers and at
unnecessary hours, and without the sanction or
wish d the defendants, who had no power to pre-
vent them, and were therefore not responsible for
it. TWAS also shown that the Office complained Of
was MT recently opened, but existed for several
years. The Court said that the defendants had ex-
culpattd themselves so far that the Injunction
would be dissolved; but it appeared that the Office
In question was entirely too small for the proper
Transaction of this business, and although the de-
fendans were not restrained from carrying on q
ing Lthir neighbors, and II the emigrants them
selves cuse nuisance it is . CASE proper only fol-
the interference OF the city authorities Injunction
dissolved, but without costs.