The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-11-02
THE COURTS.
SUPREME CCuaT-e:WaAl Term.

OpeniIg OF the November Term-Number OF
Cases on tina Calendar aud Opening Pro-
ceediuss.
Eefore Judges Ingraliam, CarIozo ana Barnard.
The Supreme Court General Term, entered yester-
DAY morning upon lis November term. There Is an
unusually largo calendar, embracing ffy non
enumerated motions and 1928 preferred causes. AS
usual, lawyers ana their coneomitants OF reo.tared
bundles ana briefs and printed papers made up the
mAoriy present, and also, as usual, there was
general uiging TO put or cases, the m'allibs pro-
good ' share are Of af'"t the day was consumed
om a order S upon tns nS
Joseph II. Ramsay $4,000 for contempt
"a "a ai.regariiny an INJUNCTION served upon HIM In
ColnpahJ. IL wal urged for Mr.. Ramsey mat he
Was ADVISED by counsel that the Injunction was vold
ana should be dlsregarded ana therefore he disre.
garded It. For the railway company it was claimed
that the injunction. however bad was IN full force
Until dissolved. The Court reserved lis opinion.
IAc great feature OF interest Waa tho decisions
given by the Court IN the two cross suts-the Ram
scJ ana Ere hailfoad suits-yery full abstracts Of
Wnich are given below.
Ecr;sion in the Tsna,scy-Erie Cnse.
Joseph II. Ramsey rs The Eric RlRtcay Gonna
Iay-lhe opinion IN ths CASE was prepared by Judge
lngrahan motion was noticed by the defend
ants t. be heard CT Delhi, Delaware county, on May
10 1870 70 change The place OF trial. and the hearing
was Adjourned tn tho soth OF May. A notice was
then secured by the plaiar for their relief, to
! %
tanned ana secured an order staying proceedings on
tnc nrst motion untu The second motion heard,
tne latter order being secured May 3d. 1870. The
fenaants attorney then secured during tho same
day an order 70 saow cause the next DAY at Brig
hamton why The stay OF proceedings served tina! day
| SHOULD not 30 Vacated. Not beng are 10 prepare
! papers and go to BnEhamton 10 oppose such mo-
ton nc plenia applied TO Justice OF the Supreme
Court at Albany anl ooialaed IN order On the
day staying all proceedings OF defendants upon this
motion 70 change the place OF trla uuti the hearing
OF TIE motion before Go.lcea ior tlo second MoAday
I
attorneys IN New York on the 3lst o. Nay before Ten
AN. On the next day the Gelendant's attorneys
obtained an order Yacatiug tho stay served Oh The
30th OF May, and then another order Changing tho
| place OF trial. a melton was then made by the
the order granted changing the place Ct trial Tor IT.
regularity on account OF the last stay OF proceedings.
s %sa mS.e WAS ffesd o aaa the pe
daass to yacaie the stay OF proceedings
MADE at Delhi on twelve hour notics after serving
| az New York 1t ten A. If. OF the 31st or May were
net proper ami oriery proceedings consistent with
a., cue administration 9; gs,i;s ana II the Court aad
| AMI The paroles RENTED 10 tie hearing OF their
original motion. Bul that could not be aenc, and
xsrs isssS4ar il ts,S!sss s, 'hs,r otdos .
without knowledge OF the counsel Intending - that
motion or any STAY o. proceedings, although tho
had been gcd about that llmc IN New York.
In his opinion this proceeding was irregular ana TO
give the order staying proceedings vitality 1t should
nave been seryedln time TO 10 communicated 70 the
counsel aeting az the court where the action was
made. Ihi; could not be done 1t spears by the AMI
dagts on ths part o tue PLAINTIFF a!id the order was
! Therefore sent TO New York, and even then was
! not served unit ! about the hour Of making the
/ molten IN Binghamon. In Ravens vs. Dibole, Is
| wenaie. 49, pea was served on al agent In
Geneva on the same day Which 4 lault was en-
cted in New York Scr tn service Of the plea. The
p.a!ntll was held 10 be regular the Court refusing
10 aotce lac serving CT the plea under the crcull-
stances OF the serving. IN Breinctd vs.. Haniorl,
liil, SOS, Brown Justice. says:-"it may be laid
.fE 49,
al-a seiscs paper on tie day when his de auit Tor
the want OF II may be rex.iarly taken and TIE de.
and nout ' Knowing ' OF 0 snc NJ ss svqc ' we
viii not iaquire CT take notice Of the, fact that the
k Of o Dc lSi Tue N aav on y Inc part Of
thc palat shows that 1t was posslbe TO Get up Tie
to SHOW cause and tho departure Of the train for
B.nghaIaton TO oppose the motion; but they DO not
ask Tor aljourimens in order 10 obtain time to pre-
pare such papers, and there is no reason to sup
pose such une ,woniJ not iaye been grant-a
IL seemed to him. however, that til, lacts
above re erred TO snould aayc been held sulClen
70 Rave allowed rehearing Of the motion on It's
merits. Luz tao appeal ifom That part OF tue order
! appealed roa HAVING leon waived by the appca I,
,h0 Court could not lussa,n the appeal Tor that
| leaiod rom DC anirnlei without costs.
TIE Er1e Raalcly Company as Ramsey ana
Cti.ers.-Ihe opluion In this case was prepared by
Judge Caraozo IL was perfectly settled that an In
junction VIII not Issue to restrain the prog,cu-
tioa OF an action pending In TINS conrt unlcas It ap
pears from special circumstances that relief unoJ be
| nad by motion OF petition In The cause. This was
decided IN schen Vs. The Erie Railway Company (5l
Barber 5. 9, H., folio $685. and 1T night be proper
| 70 add as That case, IN consequence, perhaps of
| some unnecessary ana PROBABLY inaccurate express
| slons in the prevailing opinion, seems to have been
misunderstood that IL Ell that Was intended by the
Court to decide TINS. VIZ, that such an Injunction
| Irregular (Dycknan w. Kernochan 2 page. CT
| L. 2Cl. Tho defendants can yet move to dissolve
| tho INJUNCTION IN tho original fult If they
| wish. Tho order below must DO reversed. AZ
to the appeal from tho order refusing to entertain
! the second motion 10 dissolve the injunction oe-
cause leave 10 make it had not been obtained pre-.
viousg. IT Is enough 10 say that when second mo
ton Is based upon new sta G OF facts arising since
the ilrat decision was made 1t is not necessary that
leave to make the motion should be obtained. 1t
may DC made as q matter o. right. me whole prlc
tlce upon the subject ~ luliy reviewed, and The au.
tAoIitie5 cited IN Belmont vs. The Erie Railway
Company l52 Bar, s. q. H., 6J1). Inat order should
also therefore be reversed, and tie orders appealed
from reversed.
Henry D. sOre,' rs. Jennie COgstcen.--Order ap-
Iealed ron reversed with costs. opinion by Judge
Cardo1o
Joseph w. Dfrson Csuctble Company rs. The
NeIr YorH Cffy S.eel Wors Order aflirmed, without
Costs Opinion by Judge ln9ralam.