
    Joseph Winter, Appellant, against Temperance Green, the elder, and William Green, her husband, and others, Respondents.
    
    When n cays» on appeal comes on to hearing, if the transcript of the record, op certified copies of the pleadings, evidence, and papers, read in . the court below, be not filed in this court," th& counsel" for the appellant will not be allowed to read, the original papenpfoUucedd>y the register of the •court of chancéry, but the appeal will be dismissed with costs,
    THIS was an appeal from-a decretal order of the court of chancery. In June, 1800, the respondents filed their bill, and supplemental and amended bills, in October and December following, against the appellant, as trustee, &e., charging various breaches of trust; requesting that-hé might be removed, and another trustee appointed in his place, or a receiver be appointed, with proper powers and instructions, and praying for an injunction to prevent the appellant from selling arid disposing of the trust estates, and for a discovery, &c.
    The appellant, in October,, 1809, put in an answer to the original bill, in part, pleading to other parts, and demurring to the remainder; and he, also, put in an answer to the supplemental and amended bills. .
    In 1811, the parties agreed' to submit all matters- in dis-. pute between them to three referees. A rule of reference was accordingly entered", on the 8 th oí June, 1811. In April, 1812, the referees made their report; which was -filed with ,the register of the court of chancery,, with all. the documents and .proofs uexMbited'á'tid taken before them.". Neithér party being-,satisfied with the report, each of them exhibited and filed their excep-' in- Jl'vgnst, ISiiSk , ■ • v1 , , ri- ,-■/
    In October term, 1812, both parties set down the exceptions for a hearing; :btit, on the :applicktioA . of the. appellant,: the hearing Was postponed. The exceptions .were again • set down for a hearing, in January term, 1813 ; but, a short time before the term. commenced, the appellant :presented;, a petition to'the ■chancellor, accompanied with affidavits,: and'praying that the report might be referred back to the' same referees,,1 for their re-examination'; but a decision op this petition: Was postponed to the first day of J"anuary term, when'the’ appellant again ‘applied for a postponement of the argument, .and decision both .ara the petition and exceptions:' Which being"refused, ■ arid the 'appellant’s counsel1 declining to argüe the exceptions, the court Of chancery,, oh the,20th jóÍ,. Jctú-uftr^:, 18,1,3, .'made a decretal, Order,, overruling the appellant’s exceptions, and allowing those of the respondents, and confirming the report of the referees, except .in such parts as -had been -excepted to by the? respondents, and ordering it to be referred to the" master, to take an account .pursuant to the report/¡with the■ V;kiriaii6ns-/-ari8 modifications mentioned ; and the petition of the appellant for a re-reference was ordered to be dismissed. An injunction Was also awarded, 'tp.Téstrám the appellant from selling and disposing of the. trust espites, Or inteifoéddlitigvt'hereWith," ..a receiver-having been appointed by the court, in October, 1812.
    ' The'respondents'set down the cause, for á final decree, at the June term, 1818; previous to which, the .appellant served them with a copy of. his petition, praying that, the order, over-, ruling his exceptions; and-alla wing those of the respondents, and the Order, for dismissing the . .petition, .for a, re-reference of the exceptions to tlie same referees, might be set aside, and that a rehearing might be had, or for such other relief as the court might think propel. The court ordered-'a-‘hearing, in the nature of a rehearing, on payment of certain costs, both of the exceptions-and the betifion. In October, the hearing was-put off, at the instance of the-appellant; and in Aprily 1814, a rer 'hearing was had,, before the present -chancellor, who. made a: decretal order,, on. the 17th of Aít?y,-181.4, from which an' appeal! was. made. to -this courts •
    
      It is unnecessary to state inore of the proceedings in this Cause, which were very voluminous. The Chancellor as-, signed the reasons for his decree'.
    
      Baldwin, for the appellant,
    having • stated the facts in the cause, and made some observations, was proceeding to read the original affidavits and papers, which had been read at the-.hearing in the court below, when he was stopped by
   Spencer, J.

It appears that the appellant has not filed, in this court, a transcript of the record* or certified copies of any of the proceedings in chancery, in this cause ; neither the report of the referees, nor the exceptions to the report,, nor any' of the papers, in that form, which is, usual and proper, on an appeal, so that they may be examined by the members of- this-court. He has, to be sure, got, the register of the court of chancery to come here* with a basket-load of papers, which he Intends to read and examine -, ■ but' that is-not the proper .course of .proceeding. As the counsel has no papers in the cause, in the proper form.for this court, and is not ready for the argument* I think the appeal ought to be dismissed.

Van Ness, J.

was of .the kamebpinion. - And.-this being the unanimous opinion, of the court, it was, thereupon, Ordereds that the appeal in this cause be dismissed, with costs.

Appeal dismissed..

Kote. It appeared that there wag no appeal from the order dismissing.the petition for a re? bearing, and some of the judges intimated that this court could not, on this appeal, order a rehearing, but must decide only on the correctness Qf the decretal -order made by the chancellor on the exception to the.report; that if the appellant,wished for-a rehearing* he should have appealed from the chancellor’s order dismissing the petition for .a rehearing*  