Case Name: Case against Shepherd
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1800-01
Citations: 1 Johns. Cas. 245
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Case against Shepherd.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 294–295

Head Matter:
*Case against Shepherd.
After.a verdict, unless a certificate, or order of a judge to stay proceedings be obtained, the party in whose favor the verdict is given, though a case be made, may proceed to enter up judgment.
After judgment entered, .the court will not hear a motion to set aside a verdict, unless there has been a certificate of a judge, or an order to stay proceedings.
A party who is dissatisfied with the refusal of the judge to grant an order to stay .proceedings, may .apply at" the next term to the court for-.that purpose.
Spencer, for the defendant,
moved to bring on the argument for a new trial in this cause.
Van Vechten,
contra,.objected, because a judgment had been regularly entered, and no order had been obtained to stay proceedings after the verdict.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The true construction of the 4th rule of January term, 1799, is, that the noticé' with a judge's-' order to stay proceedings, is a substitute for the former practice of a rule'to show causé; and, therefore, if the party neglects, to obtain, or cannot obtain, an' order to stay, proceedings, the. consequence iS, 'that if, when the hearing of the motion is to coiné on, a judgment has been duly entered, he cannot be heard on the motion ; for we will not hear an argument to set aside a verdict, default, of inquisition, after a judgment has been duly entered.'
There is- nothing in the rules of the court' to prevent a party, who is dissatisfied with the refusal of a judge to grant a certificate, or order to stay proceedings, from applying to the court for that purpose: '
Though the defendant is rioty therefore, strictly entitled to be heard, yet, as there appears to have - been- a misconstruction of the. rule, we . will,,in the present instance, hear the motion.
A case made by the unsuccessful party, to set aside a verdict or non-suit, is not of itself a stay ,of proceedings unless, some question is reserved ; Statute of 1832, (p. 188, § 1.) Savage, v. Hicks, 2 Wend. 246; but it is necessary to procure an order for that purpose from- the judge, who tried the' cause. Id. See also, 2 Gra. Prác. 2d ed. 334. If this be refused, an appeal may be taken to the court, and it is enough, with a view to a motion for a new trial, that the party make out a doubtful case. Wright v. Wright et al., 1 Cowen, 598.