Case Name: Scranton v. Baxter
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1850-04
Citations: 1 Sandf. 660
Docket Number: 
Parties: Scranton v. Baxter.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 3
Pages: 660–662

Head Matter:
Scranton v. Baxter.
The death of a sole plaintiff, after the report of a referee to whom the cause was referred, in favor of the defendant, will not prevent the entry ot a judgment against him on the report,
la this respect, the report of referees is within the spirit of the statute regulating the entry of judgment after the death of a party, on verdicts rendered before that event.
April, 1850.
MotioN to strike a cause from the calendar of the general term. The suit had been transferred from the supreme court. The action was trover, the cause was referred, and the referee reported in favor of the defendant, The plaintiff made a case with a view to move to set aside the report, and thereupon obtained a stay of proceedings. He subsequent!)' died, and his executors refused to become parties to the suit. The motion to strike the cause from the calendar was made in their behalf,
J. Ah Taylor, in support of the motion.
i?. Goodman, contra,

Opinion:
Campbell, J.
(with the concurrence of two of his associates.) The statute, 2 R. S. 38T, § 4, provides for the entry of final judgments on verdicts in the name of the original parties, within two terms after verdict, notwithstanding the death of either party after verdict and before such final judgment is entered.
Judgment may be entered upon the report of referees the same as upon verdict ; and this was expressly decided in Burhans v. Burhans, 10 Wend. 601: the statute applying virtually to both in spirit if not in terms.
This case is different from that of an executor prosecuting in bis own name, as executor for the recovery of a claim originating in the lifetime of the testator. In such case, the executor may be excused from costs, because, in the language of the opinions, " he cannot understand the whole subject." (Ketchum v. Ketchum, 4 Cowen 87.) It is not the case of executors applying for leave to discontinue a suit before verdict, without costs, for the same reason might apply that they had not sufficient knowledge of the facts to enable them to prosecute, even though there might be, in point of fact, a good cause of action.
In Seymour v. Dego, 5 Cowen, 289, the facts were like the present, except in that case the plaintiff was nonsuited ; in this, there was a report against him. It was, therefore, in that case purely a question of costs. Nothing was settled. Here is a report which, if affirmed and final judgment entered upon it, settles the matter In controversy.
The rule is well settled, (2 Tidd's Practice, 845 ; 2 Dunlop's Pr. 746,) that " if either party die after a special verdict, and pending the time taken for argument or advising thereon, or on motion in arrest of judgment, or for a new trial, judgment may be entered at common law after his death, or of the term in which the portea was returnable, or judgment would otherwise have been given, nunc pro tune ¡'' and the very good reason given is, that " the delay arising from acts of the court may not prejudice the party." But the delay,may arise, and the prejudice be done, as well by giving the opposing party time to prepare and argue his case, as in postponing the decision after argument. It is true, as alleged, that there is fO one to stand up and argue the case, according to the fiction that the parties are present in court conducting their own actons. But a cause on argument is very different from a cans--' 0,1 trial. In the former, on a suggestion from any one, tp court might look into the matter, and see whether the repop verdict should be set aside,, and this it would be competen- aild proper to do, though no argument was had. Not so orAnarily in a trial, where witnesses are to be produced, and tesfetnony taken.
In the ease of Sir John Trelawney v. Bishop of Winchester, 1 Burrows 221, the plaintiff died during the first argument, but the event did not prevent the court from proceeding to hear a second argument after the lapse of more than a year. (See Springled v. Jayne, 4 Cowen 423; Spalding v. Congden, 18 Wend. 543.)
The case in 20 Wend. 677, cited on behalf of the executors, was a motion for leave to enter a judgment on demurrer, which the court said was not a final judgment; and that it would not settle the matter in controversy.
Upon the whole, we think this motion should be denied.