The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-14
STEWART WILL CASES VOID.
JUSTICE SCOTT QUAsHEs THEM As
TEIdTIOUs AND HIRhSSING.
No Statutory Authority for His Action,
Which Rests Upon the Inherent Power
of the Court to Prevent Bnseless Lit
Ignition = English Prcccdenta OnnteL.

No Statutory Authority for His Action,
Which Rests Upon the Inherent Power
of the Court to Prevent Bnseless Lit
iEation - English Preccdens Quoted.
Two actions brought respectively by Alex
ander Stewart and Mary Agnes Carroll. by
guardian, against Helen c. Butler, Prescott
Hall Butler and other owners OF certain parcels
OF property that formed part OF the estate OF
the late Alexander r. Stewart. to secure the
property as though the merchant had left no
valid will. were dismissed by Justice Scott OF
the Supreme Court yesterday. The decision Is
an unusual one In this country. and is based on
the inherent power OF the Court to prevent
baseless. vexatious and harassing litigation.
The Court says at the outset:
1t Is true that no statutory authority can
be found for Diminishing a complaint because
the action Is clearly vexatious. frivolous or
groundless. but this fact alone Is no answer to
the assertion OF tho power OF the Court to
do So"
The Court quotes several English decisions
whore this power was exercised. and notably
the case of the Metropolitan Bank vs. Pooly.
decided by the House of Lords. Justice Scott
says that it is q strong exercise of power, and
should be employed only after careful cx-
animation of the facts.
The, facts in the Alexander Stewart case
Stewart was Of age Alexander Stewart
brought n similar action concerning another
parcel OF the Stewart estate In the Court OF
Common Pleas in 1891 against Henry Hilton.
The action was dismissed. A new trial was
had. and the com plant was again dismissed,
and the costs have not been paid. An appeal
was taken. but II was not perfected. and il was
dismissed for want of prosecution in March.
1S'S, The rlaintiN also brought similar suits
about the timo this action was commenced
concerning other parcels The Court says he
Is financially irresponsible. The Court notes
that tho altldavlts in support Of the motion to
dismiss arc not controverted In their state
ments that the action was. brought in bad
faith and for hlackma and by tho silence OF
the plaintiff on this subject IT is held on the
record that the action is basclcss. That the
COMPLAINT was dismissed twice in the prior
sufficient ground to find that this action may
not I've VOL founded. because plaintiff may
produce further proof of his relationship to
Alexander T. Stewart which he failed to show
at IN" two prior trials. but his atlidavits fail to
state that he has any new evidence. The
Judge concludcs
Upon the case as presented by the afIda-
Wits | cannot escnne tho conclusion that this ia
a baseless. yeNatOus and harassing action be-
gun with the hope that the defendant may
find it easier and cheaper to buy off the plain
tilt and his attorneys than to contest the ac-
ton. To such an action the Court should lend
no countenanre. but should in my opinion.
exercise its undOubtcd inherent power OF re-
fusing TO permit the action to proceed"
For the same reasons stated in the case OF
Alexander Stewart a separate opinion dis
misses the action OF Mary Agnes Carroll.