Case Name: Robert W. Johnson, App'lt, v. Ellen C. Johnson, Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1889-01-28
Citations: 21 N.Y. St. Rep. 241
Docket Number: 
Parties: Robert W. Johnson, App'lt, v. Ellen C. Johnson, Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 21
Pages: 241–243

Head Matter:
Robert W. Johnson, App'lt, v. Ellen C. Johnson, Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed January 28, 1889.)
Practice nr divorce cases in entering judgment on report of REEEREE.
Application for judgment in divorce suits, unless exporte, must be made at the special term for the hearing of enumerated motions and not at the special term for the hearing of non-enumerated motions so where an application was made at special term at chambers to confirm the report of a referee in a divorce suit, the judge rightfully dismissed the application. And although the reason assigned by him was erroneous, this fact forms, no ground for requiring him to violate the rules of court, Daniels, J.„ dissenting.
Appeal from order made at chambers dismissing application to confirm the report of a referee.
Chas. M. Stabler, for app’lt; Roger A. Pryor, for resp’t.

Opinion:
Van Brunt, P. J.
The court, at any special term, had undoubtedly the power to entertain the application, but in. the regulation of the business in .this district it has always, been the practice to require applications for judgments in divorce cases, unless ex parte, to be made at the special term for-the hearing of enumerated motions, and not at the-special term for the hearing of non-enumerated motions. Therefore, the justice was right in refusing to hear the motion. If he assigned an erroneous reason for his refusal, this fact forms no ground for requiring him to violate the rules which the judges of this district have adopted for the regulation of the business of the court. If the plaintiff in this case has a right to have his application heard at the special term for the hearing of motions, then any suitor has a right'to bring any action to trial there. Such a ruling would be subversive of all power in the court to regulate its business.
It seems to me that the appeal is utterly without merit, and such appeals should not be successful.
The order should be affirmed, with costs" and disbursements.
Bartlett, J., concurs.