Wilson against White

*Wilson against White. ALBANY, Oct. 1827. Where a íariy0 pending" report of refer3 ees on the me-the’ ing agrees as to part, his notye morve°for ti^r^ort °n security, on ly® Aprobable insolvency of vingfaif7there be delay. So ol a motion to set diet.9 3 VSr" But if one move to be let in to such a motion on terms, the court may order judgment, as a condition to the relief. An order to stay proceed-view- 'to11 set aside a report of referees on the merits, is thePihrther" orí der of the need ’not be eístídays^of 'he next term, This cause being referred, the referees reported in favor of-the plaintiff, to about $1500 ; and on the ground that ^ rePort was wrong, except as to about $300, a motion was pending to set it aside upon the merits. With a view that motion, the defendant had obtained a commissioner’s order to stay the plaintiff’s proceedings, “ till the further order of the court. But he had not noticed the cause for argument at the present term. hTow, on an affidavit intended to show that if the judgment be delayed, there would be danger of losing the plaintiff’s claim, on account of the defendant’s habits, by which his property might be dissipated, a motion was made to vacate the order, and enter up judgment on the- report. An objection was also taken that the order should not have J been general; but only to stay proceeding till the 4th day of the term next after it was made. J. H. Bronson, for the motion. J. Butterfield, contra. [MAJORITY — The Court] The Court denied the motion, saying it was without pre* cedent ■ and that the circumstances of every party upon the calendar against whom a verdict or report had been ob-. tained, might as well be revised in the same way. We do not allow judgment to go as security, on an affirmative motion against a party, who comes regularly upon the calendar to set aside a verdict or report, on the merits. This is done only where he applies for leave to move upon terms; not right. In all such cases we have power, as one of the terms, if we see that the plaintiff’s safety demands it, to require a condition that judgment or execution should go as security. This is not that case. Motion denied with costs.