Case Name: Bayard against Malcolm
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1806-05
Citations: 1 Johns. 310
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bayard against Malcolm.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
Bayard against Malcolm.
Practke. Where a^certificateto íngs m a cause amomuTto an enlargement of ruler/Sfmda motion m arrest ©f judgment, may be made at subseyientjand before thejudgménl is entered up and perfect. c^-
BENSON, opposed the hearing of the motion in afrest of judgment, in this cause ; he contended, that it xnust be made within the first four days of the term, next after the verdict, or that an order should be obtained, to stay proceedings until a further day for that purpose. In this case, notice was given for the first day of Februar y term, that a motion would be made in arrest of judgment an¿ for a nonsuit, or a new trial; this notice was not served until Friday the 7th February. No order for staying proceedings was granted, until the first four days 0f the term had elapsed.
. Hanson, contra.
, . „ No notice or the motion m arrest ot judgment, was necessary. When the certificate for staying proceedings was granted, it was understood, that the motion in arrest of judgment, and for a new trial, might be made at any time before judgment was entered up and perfected. 1 his is agreeable to the practice of the English courts, and where our rules have not providef] for a case, or appear doubtful, this court adopts the . r English practice.
Douglas, 745. Taylor v. Whitehead.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
If the defendant file his reasons in arrest of judgment, within the first four days of the term, next after the verdict, and judgment is also stayed by a, judge's certificate, the defendant is at liberty, at any time, or term thereafter, during the existence of the certificate, and while it is in force, to move in arrest of judgment.. According to the English practice, the certificate to stay proceedings amounts to an enlargment of the four day-rule nisi. If it were otherwise, the defendant would for ever preclude himself from making his motion, for a new trial, unless time were given by a special rule ; for that motion, according to the course of business, can never be brought on within the first four days; so that these special rules would be requisite in every case, and be come rules of course ; and We may as well, at once, con- . , , -nr j. • sider the certificate for staying- proceedings, as amounting to an enlargement of the rule nisi.
EL B. The counsel not agreeing to consolidate the two motions, the court said, that as the motion in arrest of judgment, was a non-enumerated motion, they would first hear the one for a new trial; afterwards, the counsel agreed to consolidate them, and the cause was argued on both ; but the court gave no opinion this Term.