Case Name: STILLE v. WOOD
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1794-05
Citations: 1 N.J.L. 260
Docket Number: 
Parties: STILLE v. WOOD.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
STILLE v. WOOD.
Bale to show cause why proceedings on judgment should.not be set aside, is not of course ; reasons must be filed.
On a rule to show cause why the return of Crips, late sheriff of Salem, on the venditioni exponas issued and returned in the above cause should not be set aside and vacated, and why the proceedings had on the 1st of May, 1786, (under the act of the legislature, passed the 23d of March, 1786, entitled [225] an act to direct the mode of proceedings on writs of fi. fa., and for transferring of lands and chattels for the payment of debts,) for the satisfying the fi. fa. in this case, and the schedule of lands and tenements, alleged to have been appraised and transferred to plaintiff in discharge of the principal, interest, and costs due to the plaintiff on said fi. fa., should not be vacated.
Woodruff moved for the argument,
and said that notice had been given to the party and his attorney ten days.
R. Stooldon and Griffith opposed it.
The rule to show cause was made on short notice ; it does not specify any cause or ground on which the application is made. The question is of too much importance for us to argue it at this short notice, particularly after an acquiescence of five years, without any reasons being filed, and without any notice of the points relied upon. We are left in utter ignorance whether the de feels alleged are of fact or of law — we know not how to prepare our affidavits or our defence.

Opinion:
Pee Cite.
The point before the court is of considerable importance. It is to set aside the proceedings on the execution, when the plaintiff himself has brought a sd. fa. on the judgment, had a trial and a second judgment thereon, which has been reversed for error.
This motion is to set aside the proceedings on the execution issued on the first judgment. It has been contended that the rule to show cause is of course. On this point it may be proper to remark that it is not of course, either in this country or in England. JBuller says it is granted for little more than asking; but this little more shows it is not of course; hence we have more than once called for the grounds on which the application was made.
But we consider the motion now before the court as a special motion, and as it is of considerable importance, we think it reasonable that the party should be informed of the grounds on which it is to be argued, and have an opportunity of meeting the facts, if there are any.
We are, therefore, unanimously of opinion that reasons should be filed, and the argument postponed.