Zabriskie v. Wilder

In Waifs Practice (vol. 4, p. 449) will be be found a form for an additional return voluntarily made by a justice. There is no doubt that this court may, of its own motion, order an amended or a supplemental return, nor is there any doubt that a justice of a district court may himself apply for leave to amend or to supplement his return (Simpson v. Carter, 5 Johns. 350 ). There is more question as to whether or not a justice mny, without obtaining permission of the appellate court, volunteer to make an amended or a supplemental return.

In Barker v. Webster the general term of the superior court of Buffalo decided that without leave of the appellate court, a justice had no right to file an amendment or addition to Ms original return; but the old supreme court, in Rudd v. Baker ( 7 Johns. 548 ) impliedly sanction the making of supplementary returns. They speak of the practice without disapproval, though they strongly reprehend the conduct of the justice in that particular case, because he was so extremely amiable that he made a fresh supplementary return whenever either of the parties called upon him, though he did not think it necessary to make his numerous returns at all consistent.

My own judgment is that it is. the safer practice to require the justice to apply for leave before he alters or adds to his first return. Notice may then be

There is no need of an amended return. The appellant’s remedy is under sec. 3049. The return need not contain proof of service of the notice of appeal upon the respondent.