
    The Bradley & Currier Co., Limited, Appellant, v. James J. Lally, Respondent.
    (New York Common Pleas
    General Term,
    December, 1894.)
    After remittitur filed in the court below, and judgment entered thereon and paid, the General Term of the Common Pleas has no jurisdiction to entertain a motion for reargument of an appeal from the City Court.
    
      Motion for reargument of appeal from the City Court.
    
      George F. Alexcmder, for motion.
    
      Theo. S. Friend, contra.
   Pbyob, J.

The remittitur has been filed in the court below; the judgment of this court has been made the judgment of that, and the appellant has acquiesced in the decision of the appeal by payment of the judgment. It is, therefore, an insuperable obstacle to the motion that we no longer have jurisdiction of the cause. Jones v. Anderson, 71 N. Y. 599 ; People ex rel. Smith v. Village of Nelliston, 79 id. 638.

. The reason urged for the motion, namely, that since our decision the Court of Appeals has enunciated the principle for which the plaintiff contends, if accepted as ground for a reargument, would be equally valid at any period, however remote from the determination of the appeal.

It had been, understood to be the law of this state that a secret advantage secured by a creditor nullifies a composition agreement as to him, but in June, 1894, the Court of Appeals established the contrary doctrine; may the countless creditors who in the past have lost by operation of the superseded principle now reassert their rights under the new adjudication ? ExpedÁt reipubliecB ut sit finis Utium.

A retrospective statute affecting vested rights is void (1 Kent. Com. 455), and of no more efficacy is a retroactive adjudication. Gelpcke v. Dubuque, 1 Wall. 175.

Motion denied, with costs.

Daly, Ch. J., and Bischoff, J., concur.

Motion denied, with costs.  