Catlin v. Cole — 10 Abb. Pr. 387

Majority

p. 387

CATLIN a. COLE.

Supreme Court, Second District;

Special Term, March, 1860.

Headnote

Case.'—Resettlement.

After a cause has been heard and determined by the general term, and a statement of the facts found ordered to be annexed to the roll, and an appeal has been taken to the Court of Appeals, a resettlement of the case, and a restatement and refinding of the facts found by the referee, is not to be allowed.^[1]

p. 388

It seems, however, that a specific error or omission in the case might be corrected / in a proper case.

Motion to refer back the cause for a resettlement of the case and exceptions.

In this case, on an appeal to the general term, after a trial by a referee, the court ordered that the facts found by the general term be annexed to the judgment-roll. On appeal from the general term to the Court of Appeals, the appellants moved in the latter court that they have leave to apply to the Supreme Court for a resettlement of the case. The order made on this motion recited that it was the opinion of this court that if the case needs any resettlement, it should be done by and before the referee who tried the cause; and no opposition to the motion being made on the part of the respondent, it was ordered that the motion be granted—expressing, however, no opinion upon the question, whether the case, as already settled, does or does not conform to law and the practice of the court.

The appellant now moved at special term to refer back the action to the referee, before whom the same was tried, to amend and settle or resettle the case and exceptions, and to separate therefrom the exceptions stated therein, in such manner, and so as duly to present to the Court of Appeals the questions of law which ought to be examined by such court on the appeal taken by the defendants to the Court of Appeals, and to amend and resettle the findings of facts and conclusions of law of the referee, so as to fitly present the questions to be examined.

N. Dane Ellingwood and H. Whittaker, for the motion.

Mr. Street, opposed.

—The order made by the Court of Appeals on the 6th of January, 1860, which appears to have been granted in

p. 389

the absence of the respondent, does not direct that the case in this action be resettled. If it needs to be resettled, it directs it shall be done by the referee who tried the action, but expresses no opinion upon the question whether the case, as already settled by the referee, does or does not conform to the law and practice of the courts.

If rule 38 of this court, to which I am referred, applies to a case heard at the general term, and decided upon the facts and the law found by the referee, and spread out at length upon the papers, it can require no more than that the general term or the judge who delivers the opinion shall say, I determine, by the order of the court, that the general term do find the same facts as were found by the referee before whom the cause was tried, and that such facts be annexed to the judgment-roll, as the facts found by the general term. This has already been done by the order of the special term of the 19th of October, 1859.

The general term of the Supreme Court is a court of appeal, and nothing else, with power to review the judgments and decisions made by referees, as well as by the special term. The Court of Appeals entertains appeals from the judgments of the general term, upon the same state of facts as were presented to the general term, and no other. Cases will doubtless occur when some word, or exception to a decision, or to some separate proposition in a charge of the judge is accidentally omitted in the bill of exceptions, and not discovered until the action has been removed to the Court of Appeals. In all such cases it is quite right that the specific error should be corrected and the omission supplied. But I do not recognize the regularity of a practice which would authorize an entire resettlement of the case, and a restatement and refinding of the facts found by the referee, after which the cause has been heard and determined by the general term. This is the relief demanded by the defendants on this motion; and if it should be granted, the case in the Court of Appeals would not, perhaps, be at all like that which was heard at the general term.

The facts have been carefully and fully found by the referee. They occupy some twenty-three folios of the case, and are signed by the attorneys who appeared for the parties in the action. I do not see that 1 can do otherwise than adhere to the

p. 390

order of the special term of the 19th of October, 1859, which has not been reversed or modified.

The defendants’ motion must be denied, with $10 costs of opposing the motion.