
    Harriet M. Shannon vs. Oliver N. Shannon.
    If this court are equally divided in opinion upon a question presented on a bill of exceptions, the exceptions are overruled; and if, in such a case, exceptions have been overruled, no exception lies to the refusal of a single judge to postpone the entry of judgment, ' and to allow the case to go again before the whole court, on a motion for a re-argument.
    Libel for divorce. At the trial in this court, the jury returned a verdict for the libellee, and the libellant alleged exceptions, which were argued before the full court, and the following re-script was entered: “ The court being equally divided in opinion, the exceptions are not sustained.” Thereupon the libellant presented her petition to the justices of this court, praying that judgment might be arrested, and a re-argument allowed upon the exceptions; but, on motion of the libellee, judgment was entered in his favor, and the petition of the libellant refused; and she alleged exceptions.
    The case was submitted by the libellee without argument.
    H. M. Shannon, pro se.
    
   Dewey, J.

1. The order of the full court, contained in the rescript filed in the case, had already declared the legal effect of an equal division of the members of the court as to the legal questions raised on the bill of exceptions. In our practice, in such a case, the exceptions are not sustained Durant v. Essex Co. 8 Allen, 103.

2. The application to the court holden by a single judge, to postpone entering a judgment, for the purpose of affording the party an opportunity for a re-argument upon a case already decided by the full court, was a matter within the discretion of the judge, and his ruling refusing such application does not furnish any ground for a bill of exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.  