New-York tribune., 1870-09-28
THE ERIE wAR-THE CASE OF RAMSEY AGAINST
GOULD, FISK, EFT AL.


In the Supreme Court, at General Term, yes
terday before Justices gaham Cardozo and Barnard,
the Of Joseph II. Ramsey agt. Jay Gould, James
Fisk, jr ct al, called. The is appeal from
order Of the NewYOrk Special Term, refusing to
cate the order Of the Broome County Special Term,
1870, plaintiffs attorneys served with aldavits
and notice Of motion for the 10th inst, at the Delaware
Special Term to change the place OF trial from Delaware
to Newiork County Upon that date plaintiff appeared
at Delhi by counsel and objected to the hearing Of the
motion upon the ground that he was under injunction
from proceeding In this cause, and that therefore, de-
PENDANTS ought not TO be allowed 10 proceed in
doing That Objection was OH'VSG oyerruldd o the SS
Court holding that because the plaintiff
no why defendants should not go on and take
whatever steps they might choose the injunction operat
ing on the plaintiff and leaving the defendants fun liberty
to conduct their side OF the case The plaintiff having
his objections to the motion overrued and not ready 70
haInton, May 81. The plaintiff appealed from such
order TO the General Term and gave motion for
June, for order staying all proceedings OF
defendants on their motion 10 change the place Of
trial until the decision Of the appeal such order
Upon these papers plaintiff procured an order staying
proceedings In the mean time until the hearing OF the
motion at BnghamtOn for further stay pending the
appeal copy Of this latter order staying proceedings
served upon defendants attorneys the 30h Nav
served with order to show the at
Bngbamton. As 1t was impossible for plaintiff to get
III papers show and take the night uhe
only onel to Binghamt0n, an affidavit Of the facts
made upon which, and the notice of motion for the Bin-
hamOn Special Term, already served, order was OH
tanned from Judge Of the Supreme Court, staying all
defendants proceedings upon their motion To change
place of trial until the hearing and decision Of the
motion then noticed for the Binghamton Special
Term of the second Monday in June. This
order duly served by mail thai night,
at IL o'clock and personally at defendants
attorneys office before 10 II. III. the next day. on
the 3lst May, at BrOOme Special Term the order
made by default changing the place Of trial from Della
ware 10 New-YOrk. A motion ut noticed for
the second Monday Of June Special Term at Bnghamton
tO set aside the order changing the place OF trial. and the
motion made at that time and place, and denied
the ground that the order changing the place Of trial.
having been made in the face of order staying
ceedngs, only irregular but not void and therefore
the proper place TO make the motion was NewIOrk As
soon such decision given the plaintiff at once
denied and the plaintiff has appealed from the order
denying the motion this court The plaintiff argues
that 10y this practice he has never yet been
able 10 have the decision Of the Special Term
reviewed, which, In effect, holds that ono
party TO action may enjOn the
from taking any steps In It, and yet himself be free
10 take any steps against his adversary. Against this
the plaintiff has protested and endeavOred ~ obtain
review Of It, that when appellate court holds the
decision Of the Special Term wrong, he may have the
benet Of IT, and find that during the prosecution Of
tin claims that order should be reversed, because the
order there asked O he vacated was Irregular and even
If IRE gular the order % stay is not void The order
changing the place OF trial therefore, Irregular aud
should be vacated by the Court Mr. Shearman for the
respondent said that the order changing the place OF
trial was regular, because when obtained they knew
nothing OF an order staying proceeding The Court took
the papers. Peckham and Ireinane, Tor appellants ;
Field aud shearman, for respondents.