Person v. Neigh

• Decision Date: 26 March 1866
• Citation: 52 Pa. 199
• Parties: Person & Drissell <I>versus</I> Neigh.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 199

52 Pa. 199

Person & Drissell versus Neigh.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 26, 1866.

ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon county.

M. M. Dimmick and H. Green, for plaintiffs in error.—The record declares that the court had adjourned; and, therefore, not being in session, was incompetent to transact judicial business: 3 Bl. Comm. 24, 25; Coke L. 58a; Constitution of Pennsylvania,

art. 5, § 1, Purd. 18; Act of April 14th 1834, § 19, Purd. 153; Horton v. Miller, 2 Wright 270; Jacobs' Law Dict., tit. Adjournment; People v. Martin, 5 N. Y. (1 Seld.) 22; La Farge v. Wagener, 14 How. 54-58.

Judges convened as individuals, even in the court-house, can do no judicial acts although they assume to perform them; rendering a verdict is a judicial act: Root v. Sherwood, 6 Johns. 67; Blackley v. Sheldon, 7 Id. 33; Dornick v. Reichenbach, 10 S. & R. 84; Rees v. Stillé, 2 Wright 138. The court has the right to send the jury back before the verdict is recorded, which presupposes that the court must be in session at the time: Ramage v. Peterson, 1 Casey 349; Reitenbaugh v. Ludwig, 7 Id. 131.

Acts done during the period of adjournment are void: Weeks v. Lyon, 18 Barb. 530; Deland v. Richardson, 4 Denio 95; Ranson v. Grow, 4 E. D. Smith 18; Gregg v. Cooke, Peck 82; Shamokin Co. v. Mitman, 3 Barr 379; Tomlin's Law Dict. 37; Morris v. Buckley, 8 S. & R. 216; Fox v. Smith, 3 Cowan 23; Root v. Sherwood, 5 Johns. Rep. 68.

J. W. Comly and N. F. Handy, for defendants in error.— In Shamokin Co. v. Mitman, 3 Barr 379, the verdict was taken in the interval of adjournment, and against the wishes of plaintiffs' counsel.

The statement of the judge is no part of the record: Brown v. School Directors, 6 Harris 78; Calhoun v. Logan, 10 Harris 47; Rogers v. Ratcliffe, 11 Harris 184; Lancaster v. De Normandie, 1 Whart. 51; Bratton v. Mitchell, 5 Watts 69; Holden v. Cole, 1 Barr 303; Rhoads v. Commonwealth, 3 Harris 272; Middleton v. Commonwealth, 2 Watts 286; Commonwealth v. Church, 1 Barr 105.

The opinion of the court was delivered, March 26th 1866, by AGNEW, J.

If the fact of an adjournment be admitted, the conclusions of the plaintiff in error must be conceded, and the reception of the verdict was irregular and erroneous. But the case is solved by an answer to the question, What is an adjournment? It is an act, not a declaration. In the proper order of procedure the announcement of the crier precedes, and does not follow, adjournment. It is but a proclamation to those in attendance of the time to which the court intends to adjourn, and gives notice of the formal act of adjournment. But adjournment is the act of separation and departure, and until this has fairly taken place, the act is incomplete. The fact of giving the order of adjournment, and the act of...