Trenton Banking Co. v. Rossell
Opinion of the Court
The postea is properly returned to this court. Where an action at law is directed by a court of equity, the postea must be returned to the court in which the suit at law is instituted. The cause is there, and motions for new trial and all other proceedings are to be had in that court. But when an issue is directed by a court of equity, the postea must he returned to the court which ordered the issue, and all the subsequent proceedings are in that court.
Wilson, on behalf of the complainants, “ The Trenton Banking company,” then applied to the court for a rule to show cause why a new trial should not be granted, on the ground that the judge who tried the cause had erroneously charged the jury. He stated, that to sustain his application it was necessary that the chancellor be furnished with the report of the judge who tried the cause: that by the English practice the judge’s report is obtained by means of an application to him by this court: 1 Newland's Chan. Prac. 353. In New-York, the case is made up in the usual manner as a case at law: 1 Hoffman's Chan. Prac. 514. In the absence of any rule, he asked the direction of the chancellor as to the mode of obtaining a slate of the case, to be used on the argument of the rule.
The following order was made by the court :—
“ The postea upon the feigned issue formed in this cause, having been returned to this court from the last Mercer circuit; and it being alleged on the part of the Trenton Banking .company
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.