Court Opinion

ID: 9642641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:05:03.141507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:50.348450
License: Public Domain

Sylvester, J.,
dissents from this opinion on the grounds that on the face of the record no property owned by the defendants had been taken into the control of the court at the time that process was issued or at the time notice of pendency of the petition was delivered to the defendants Bender and Feuerlicht in New York.
On Motion to Reargue
Present: Holden, C. J., Shangraw, Barney, Smith and Keyser, JJ.
Barney, J.
The defendant Feuerlicht moved for permission to reargue. Meanwhile, the plaintiff brought to the attention of this Court the death of the defendant Bender, which occurred after argument and shortly before the filing of the opinion. The plaintiff moved for revivor of the cause and the rendering of judgment nunc pro tunc, so that the intervening death of a defendant would not affect the conclusiveness of the adjudication. To insure notice, and to afford the executor of Bender’s estate an opportunity to participate, if he chose, in the matters still before this Court, a show cause order was issued, and duly served on him outside the state.
 It must be kept in mind, as was pointed out in the main opinion, that the jurisdiction of this Court in proceedings under 12 V.S.A. §2386 is limited to the questions certified, with authority to render final judgment if the answers to the questions dispose of the litigation. We cannot step outside the certification to consider new or different questions; we are constrained by the statute. Whatever *317essentials of the litigation are not carried up. to this Court by operation of the .certification, must remain in the court of origin. See Anderson v. Vermont Electric Power Co., 122 Vt. 43, 46, 164 A.2d 156.
This limitation has significant consequences in connection with questions sought to be raised in this Court now. In the first place, the show cause order here is limited in effect to the matters presently before this Court on this certification. It does not, in any way, introduce the Bender executor as a party to the main cause. That is a matter to be appropriately raised and disposed of in the lower court.
Likewise, with respect to the plaintiff’s contention that the subsequent actions of the defendant Feuerlicht have converted her special appearance to a general one, this is a question not certified to us, and ■therefore beyond our present reach.
Again, since the result here is not in the nature of a judgment, but consists merely of responses to certified questions with the main cause remaining below, the doctrines of revivor and judgment nunc pro tunc are inapplicable. Substitution of parties is an issue to be raised before the court having supervision of the litigation. Other than the two questions certified here, this cause is still pending below, in contrast to the situation in Noyes v. Pierce, 97 Vt. 188, 196, 122 Atl. 896.
■ The motion for reargument advances no arguments not fully considered when the appeal was heard, and calls to our attention no material question overlooked or misapprehended in arriving at the result announced.

The plaintiff's motions for revivor and for judgment nunc pro tunc are denied.

The defendant Feuerlicht’s motion for reargument is denied; let full entry go down.