Case Name: Pratt against Malcolm
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1816-08
Citations: 13 Johns. 320
Docket Number: 
Parties: Pratt against Malcolm.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
Pratt against Malcolm.
A bill of cxoeptoojusUcSoniy coramon°Upicas! of ^exceptions* jad\ciitlTVake notice of, or grant a writ^ to tices to come deny
Storrs, for the -plaintiff in error,
moved, that the judges of the court of Common pleas' of Madison county, who had signed the bill of exceptions taken in this cause, come in and acknowledge, their seals, and tba-t.a writ'be directed to them for that purpose, ' ;(1 N. R. L. 326. sess. 36. ch. 4. s. 6.)
Root, contra,
objected , that only two of the justices had.signed the bill of exceptions; whereas three justices, at least,, were necessary to constitute a court of common pleas, so that this was not a legal bill of exceptions, or one of which this court could take notice.
Storrs, in reply,
contended, that if one of the justices refused to sign the bill of exceptions, the others might do it; that this was so laid down by Coke in his reading on' the English statute, which was similar to ours; (2 Inst. 427. 2 Lev. 237.) and in the case of Money and others v. Leach, Pratt, the chief justice of the C. P., alone sealed the bill of exceptions, and came into the court of K. B. to acknowledge his seal, pursuant to the writ directed to him for that purpose.
Burr. 1692. 1742. 1750.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The. application, in this case,' is for a writ directed to the judges of the court of common pleas of Madison county, requiring them to come into this court to confess or deny their seals to a bill of exceptions. Upon examining the bill of exceptions, it purports to have been sealed by only two judges. This we think is not sufficient. Not less than three judges can form a court of common pleas. And as the bill of exceptions is not a part of the record, the decision complained of should at least appear to be made by a number which we can judicially notice as constituting a court. To permit a bill of exceptions to be sealed by one judge only, would be liable to great abuse; for although, regularly, a bill of exceptions must be tendered at the trial, yet it is, in practice, usually reduced to form, and sealed after-wards, and often in vacation. We think, therefore, that this is not such a bill of exceptions as we can notice, so as to justify the granting of the motion..
Motion denied.