John Brown, Administrator of John Aspden, Deceased Et Al Appellants v. Mathias Aspden Administrators, Et Al

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Citation: John Brown, Administrator of John Aspden, Deceased Et Al Appellants v. Mathias Aspden Administrators, Et Al, 55 U.S. 25, 14 How. 25, 14 L.Ed. 311 (1852)
• Decision Date: 01 December 1852
• Parties: JOHN A. BROWN, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN ASPDEN, DECEASED, ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MATHIAS ASPDEN'S ADMINISTRATORS, ET AL

55 U.S. 25

14 How. 25

14 L.Ed. 311

JOHN A. BROWN, ADMINISTRATOR OF JOHN ASPDEN, DECEASED,

ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

MATHIAS ASPDEN'S ADMINISTRATORS, ET AL.

December Term, 1852

THIS was an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and was the conclusion of the case of Aspden et al. v. Nixon et al., reported in 4 How. 467.

It was affirmed by a divided court in December, 1852; and in February, 1853, a petition for a rehearing was filed by the appellants.

Upon which petition Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

A motion has been made for a rehearing in this case, and we have been referred to the practice of the English Chancery Court in support of the application. The argument presupposes that this court, in cases in equity, has adopted the rules and practice of the English chancery. But this is a mistake. The English chancery is a court of original jurisdiction; and this court is sitting as an appellate tribunal. It would be impossible, from the nature and office of the two tribunals, to adopt the same rules of practice in both.

Nothing could show this more strongly than the present application. By the established rules of chancery practice, a rehearing, in the sense in which that term is used in proceedings in equity, cannot be allowed after the decree is enrolled. If the party desires it, it must be applied for before the enrolment. But no appeal will lie to the proper appellate tribunal, until after it is enrolled, either actually or by construction of law. And, consequently, the time for a rehearing must have gone by before an appeal could be taken. In the House of Lords, in England, to which the appeal lies from the Court of Chancery, a rehearing is altogether unknown. A reargument, indeed, may be ordered, if the house desires it, for its own satisfaction. But the chancery rules in relation to rehearings, in the technical sense of the word, are altogether inapplicable to the proceedings on the appeal.

Undoubtedly this court may and would call for a reargument, where doubts are entertained which it is supposed may be removed by further discussion at the bar. And this may be done after judgment is entered, provided the order for reargument is entered at the same term. But the rule of the court is this,—that no reargument will be heard in any case after judgment is entered, unless some member of the court who concurred in the judgment afterwards doubts the correctness of his opinion, and desires a further argument on the subject. And when that happens, the court will, of its own accord, apprise the counsel of its wishes, and designate the points on which it desires to hear them.

There is certainly nothing in the history of the English Court of Chancery to induce this court to adopt rules in relation to rearguments, analogous to the chancery practice upon applications for a rehearing. According to the general practice of that court, one rehearing, where the application has been sanctioned by the signature of two counsel, is a matter of course. And this facility in obtaining one rehearing, has naturally led to others, and in cases of interest or difficulty, two, or even three, rehearings have sometimes been allowed, under the special leave of the court, before the decree was enrolled, and, consequently, before it could be removed to the House of Lords. The natural result of this practice is to produce some degree of carelessness in the first argument, and hesitation and indecision in the court. But the great evil is...