The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1877-07-11
The 8utland 9ailY Glnhs
WEDNESDAY, JULY IL, 1877.
THE COURT IF CHANCERY OF YER
MONT


MONT.
We are sure that no apology will be
needed by our readers for surrenderipg so
much of our space, this morning, to the
annexed communication of Colonel Walker.
The reform in cur law aGd chancery pro-
cedure will demand the attt ntion, not only
of lawyers and legislators, but of the peo-
pie, in tie immt ate future, and it is none
too early to commence the discussion that
the people and legislature may be able to
act intelligently upon the subject. More
over, we have taken occasion TO cri,icise
Colonel Walkers address at Middle
bury, but it appearing that our COM
ments were made upon an imperfect
report thereof, common fairness and
common ju tice would require tLat he
should have full caring and be able to
present his views, just as he expressed
them there before q larger constituency
than he could obtain when speaking before
the alumni of Mi, debury college. 1t is,
perhaps, unnecessary to add that We do not
entirely coincide with all the views ex-
pressed by the colonel, but those who recall
our former articles will readily see the
points of difference between US, and so we
need not, at this time, further comment
thereon.
Editor Of Rutland Globe: submit for
your examination and such use as you see
fit, certain parts of my recent address al
Middlebury upon which you have remarked
somewhat, but which has not been publish
ed save in very condensed form.
AS you seem willing TO open your col
umns for the discussion of tie subjects per-
tainlng to the practice in the court of chan
Gerry, venture also to call your attention
to house bill l40, introduced at our last
legislative session by Judge Wales, and un-
derstood to have been drafted or revised by
Gov. Underwood.
In my judgment, however, the Connect
lieut. system of reference to a committee of
masters to find and report the facts in It'll
gated chancery causes is not likely to be as
satisfactory in practical results as the
method of trial in open court in use in
many other states. Truly,
ALDACE F. WALKER.
In certain states Of our union there has
been an effort made, notably in New
York, to dispense with the court of
chancery in connection with gen.
eral recasting of the forms of action
and of legal procedure under an
arbitrary system of rules called a code,
devised ostensibly to simplify the methods
Of the common law and thereby promote
the attainment of speedy and complete JUS
tice, adapted to all circumstances and ap-
propriate to every emergency. To that
end it was enacted in New York in 1S49,
as follows: "The distinction between ac-
lions at law and suits in equity, and the
forms of all such actions and suits hereto
fore existing, are abolished and there shall
be in this state hereafter but one form OF
action for the enforcement or protection of
private rights and the redress of private
wrongs, which shall be denominated civil
action"
This was the most radical and sweeping
"reform" embraced in the famous New
York code of procedure; the courts OF
that state have ever since been engaged in
defining and establishing under thi,
code, the most complicated and la.
borious system Of practice in the
known world and to-day, after mil.
lions of dollars have been expended by
litigants in obtaining decisions from the
courts of that state as to how their suits
ought or ought not to have been brought,
the good work is still going on under con-
slant pressure of alteration and amend
ment, in a constant struggle over forms an6
details, to the great profit of their lawyers
but if they view it candidly, to their last
ing shame.
And very soon the section of the code
above quoted came up for construction be
fore the court of appeals, which decided
(Reubens VS.. Joel, Is N. Y. 1887 that il
the legislature thereby undertook to abol
ish the distinctions between law and equity
II was not only unconstitutional but from
the nature OF things, impossible. Tit
court IN that case said, that it might b,
possible to abolish one mode of relief Of
the other, but it certainly was not possibl,
20 abolish the distinction between them
And that the legislature had not the con
stitutional power to abolish either, or Il
reduce all actions to one homogeneous form
But the court further held that the cod
might be construed so as to preserve in
stead of abolish the essential distinction
between actions at law and suits in equity
and ever since, whatever may have beel
the labyrinths of method and practice il
which the courts and attorneys of NeV
York have floundered, they have uniform
ly preserved inviolate the old and unavoid
able distinction between law and equity
as to subject matter and mode of relief
as well as IN respect to manner of trial
whether by judge or by jury.
II may, therefore, be accepted as estat
lished that the court of chancery is a va
liable and essential portion of our judicis
system. Taat the spirit of our laws an
their administration requires the continu
ance and careful preservation of this az
parently anomalous institution that with
out 1t the rights of all classes of our cit
zens would be in danger of constant infrac
tion that 1t Is Of avail to creditors as we
as debtors to the rich as well as the poor
but that 1t is especially of value to modif,
and ameliorate tho condition of the unfoi
tunate, and TO protect those who most nee