Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1882 Excerpt:... they stood as follows," yeas 26, nays 32, "so it was negatived by one branch of the court." In council, October 26th, it was resolved that, unless the house should recede from this last determination, the governor, council and assembly, as a court, could take no further cognizance of the cause. The house did not recede, and the cause was not further proceeded with. By act of March 3d, 1787, the supreme and county courts were each made to consist of one chief and two side judges, and as to the supreme court, it was provided that "if any one or more of the said judges shall be disabled from attending by reason of sickness or otherwise, the presiding judge shall have the power of calling to his assistance any one councillor within the State." This provision was not continued in force many years, and is not known to have been ever acted upon. The judges of both the supreme and county courts were by the constitution of 1786 chosen by the house of representatives in conjunction with the council, and also by the constitution of 1793-1 There was no court of chancery nor any court authorized to exercise chancery powers, except that the courts of law were authorized to mitigate penal obligations, from 1787 to 1797. By an act passed March 3d, 1797, a court of chancery was constituted consisting of the judges of the supreme court, with all the powers incident to a court of chancery, the proceedings to be regulated by the judges conforming to the English practice. $ In 1814 an act was passed, providing for law terms of the supreme court to be holden by all the judges, any two of whom should constitute a quorum, and for trial terms to be holden by one or more of the judges, each once in each year in each county; and for adjourning actions from the trial to the law terms...