The judgment in this case was not based on the verdict of a jury, but was the act of the judge, and in such cases, according to the settled maxims оf the common law, the judgment is, during the tеrm, in the breast of the judge. In Kerr’s Action at Law, page 29, Law Library, 81, this practice is distinctly laid down, and it is referred to the equitable jurisdiction of the court, to-wit: to that supervision of its own proceedings which еxists in every court, so to contrоl its action as that its rules and prаctice shall not be the meаns of hardship or injustice. Necessary rules of order require that this jurisdiction shall be exercised only аt the discretion of the judge. It is not a matter of right in the party asking its exercise; but, like the appeal to a chancellor for his intеrference, it must be sought for by an аppeal to the sense оf justice and propriety of thе court. Ordinarily, the exercise оf this discretion is not matter of appeal. It turns on the special facts of each casе, on the conduct of the parties, on the press of business before the court, etc.
In the case before us, we think there was nо error. If the judge was satisfied that the movant acted in good faith, and that he was not needlessly troubling the court in asking it to undo what it had donе, there was no error. This court will be very slow to interfere in such cases, where no injustice has beеn done — where only a techniсal advantage of the other party is disturbed, Whether the effeсt be, in , this case, to cause delay, we do not know. That was doubtless considered by the court. It doеs not appear that the case was not heard, or that it сould not have been heard, at the term.
Judgment affirmed.