Grant against Root and Hobbie

Grant against Root and Hobbie. A judgment of this court is perfect after 4 time of enter-judgment, tho’ the record he not filed. After this, a ha^notTthe power to order a stay of proceedmgs, with a view to a Míwtr¡a/!1” a But where the practice, was^mistaken íy t_the court se?-'aside the and666granted liberty to trial! ^mSpayment of costs, ’^'HE defendants having obtained a verdict, entered their rule for judgment, and, after the lapse of four days thereafter taxed their costs ; and then, before the record was filed, the plaintiff obtained an order to stay proceedings, from the Recorder of Albany, with a view to move for a new trial, on account of newly discovered evidence; and on a mo- . , r, tt n , , . , , tion by L. trl. Haggles, which was opposed by J. Sudam, one fiuest*on was, whether this order was regular; and [MAJORITY — Sutherland, J. Curiam.] Sutherland, J. said, the judgment was perfect after 4 ;1 , . , days, though the record was not filed ; so that no order cou^ be granted by a single Judge, or commissioner; to which the other Justices agreed ; but, Curiam. As here has been a misapprehension of the Prac^ce’ by the plaintiff’s attorney, and he has proceeded in good faith, andas there is probable cause for a new trial, we se* as’^e the defendants’ proceedings, on payment of costs, and let the plaintiff in to move for a new trial, in the same manner as if he had proceeded regularly, for that purpose, in the first instance. Rule accordingly.