Miles v. Wilson
Opinion of the Court
This is a motion by plaintiffs, instituted on an order to show cause which contained a temporary stay as against the defendant. The motion is now before me for decision.
The court has the right, if not the duty, to take judicial notice of the record in its own proceedings, and the record on appeal to the Court of Appeals discloses that the judgment of the Special Referee was affirmed by the Appellate Division with one dissent (6 A D 2d 898) which, however, was on a ground entirely separate and apart from that which is now to be decided. The Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the judgment, with costs and no opinion (5 N Y 2d 822). In the decision and judgment which was entered in the action there was specific provision as follows: ‘ ‘ One further observation before I finish: I want to stress that all of the books and records in this case
The basis of the motion now before me begins with a notice purportedly signed by 10 members of the church in which they call for a meeting of the church at a time stated therein for the' purpose of removing plaintiffs from the office which they hold as deacons and trustees. (I know of no provision in the statute which permits this to be done and the by-laws are still elusive.) It was when this notice came to plaintiffs’ attention that the proceeding now before me was initiated by order to show cause. The attorneys before me purported to enter on behalf of the 10 named persons a special appearance. That to me is nothing more or less than a subterfuge, but even accepting it at face value it is of little moment and for the following reasons :
Even if reliance is placed on the statutory provision which authorized 10 members to call for a meeting, then there has been noncompliance with the .statute since of the 10 who purportedly signed the call two are definitely infants. They are Henry Wynne, who at the time of the trial was 12 years of age, and Maitland Pells, who at the time of the trial was also 12 years
A final word: In the affidavit of Mary Wynne, submitted in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a continuing injunction, there is reference to the fact that she had been advised by Wilson, the defendant, that the Reporter Company (evidently a printing concern) has “ a motion to reargue a motion for a stay and a motion to amend the remittitur to certify federal questions to the United States Supreme Court is now in the hands of the Reporter Company, so that Reverend Wilson’s action is still pending and undetermined before the Court of Appeals or on a motion for a Writ of Certiorari.”
The trial record and the record in the Appellate Division do not disclose that any constitutional question was raised at either time. Under such circumstances, I know of no case where the United States Supreme Court has ever granted a writ of certiorari.
For all the reasons set forth, plaintiffs’ motion is granted. Submit order.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.