Case Name: Butler & Vosburgh vs. Abraham F. Miller, Sheriff
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1848-09
Citations: 3 How. Pr. 339
Docket Number: 
Parties: Butler & Vosburgh vs. Abraham F. Miller, Sheriff.
Judges: 
Reporter: Howard's Practice Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
COURT OF APPEALS,
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1848.
Butler & Vosburgh vs. Abraham F. Miller, Sheriff.
Tills court has jurisdiction of an appeal taken prior to the 1st of July last, under the 5th section of the Judiciary Act of December, 1847, (Statutes 1847, p. 639,) lrom a decision of the Supreme Court upon bill of exceptions. (Code, § 5, 10.)
Whether appeals may still be brought under that act in cases where the action was pending prior to the 1st of July last. Quare?
Appeal by the Plaintiffs under the fifth section of the Judiciary Act of December, 1847, (Stat. 1847, p. 639,) from a decision of the Supreme Court granting a new trial to the Defendant, upon a hill of exceptions. The appeal was taken prior to the first day of Julydast^ashen the Code of Procedure took effect, (Stat. 1848, p. 497J
K. Miller, for the Defendant, said the < peal, as the provisions of the Judiciary Act* by the 388th section of the code. He cited
John H. Reynolds, for the Plaintiffs, citd

Opinion:
Bronson, J.
The Code of Procedure which there may be an appeal to this court, whhoul^ohidmpams appeal on a bill of exceptions provided for by the Judiciary Act ofDecember, 1847, (§ 282, 11,) and abolishes writs of error and appeals as they have heretofore existed, (§ 271.) And further, all statutory provisions inconsistent with the code, are repealed, (§ 388.) But originally these sections only applied to actions commenced on or after the first day of July last: (§ 8, 391, 10,) and the supplemental code has only applied (sections 271 and 282,) to future proceedings in suits pending on that day. (§ 2.) This appeal was taken prior to the first day of July last, and we still have jurisdiction to hear it. (code, § 10.) The act of Decern her, 1847, when applied to appeal depending on the first of July, is not so inconsistent with anything in the code as to come within the repealing section, (388.) The code makers did not intend to take away any right which had already attached under the old law; but only to change the law for the future.
Whether appeals may still be brought from the decisions of the Supreme Court on bills of exceptions,"in cases where the action was pending prior to the first day of July, is a question which need not now be decided.
We are of opinion that this appeal, and the others which have been mentioned as depending on the same question, may be prosecuted in the same manner as though the code had not been passed.
Ordered accordingly.