from 1806 to 1851 139
And still again,¹⁵

Had it not been that the Court of Appeals was so often
literally crushed physically and mentally by the weight of long,
heavy, pointless speeches and often upon questions involving
neither law nor property, they would have approached with
unalloyed pleasure the consideration of records which were to
be elucidated by Mr. McMahon and his noble compeers.

It was still, during this period, the regular prac-
tice to decide cases at the term of argument, be-
fore adjournment of sessions; but the court could,
and did, as it had always done, hold some cases
under advisement; and when it did so it held them
over to the succeeding terms. It did this with
increasing frequency as years passed by. When-
ever a case was so held under advisement, it was
entered as continued, curia advisari vult, or more
commonly, Cur, adv. vult,

For some time after 1806, the practice of de-
ciding without stating or filing opinions in ex-
planation of the decisions of the court continued.
Indeed the propriety of filing an opinion was not
yet beyond dispute. In a case at the June term,
1806,¹⁶ Judge Nicholson said:

He had uniformly been of opinion, that it was improper for
the court in the last resort, to assign their reasons for the final
judgment. In the inferior court it was proper that they should
give the reasons of their decision, because it afforded counsel an
opportunity^ when they came before the Court of Appeals, to
show the fallacy of the reasoning of the court below, if it was
fallacious. He had, therefore, on this account, always given
the reasons of the court in which he presided.¹⁷ But here there
was no necessity of that kind, because the decision of the Court

15. Mason, Life of McMahon, 99 and 101.

16. Beatty v. Chapline, 2 Harris & Johnson, 26.

17. Some of Judge Nicholson's opinions were published in contem-
porary periodicals. See 1 Amer. Law Journal, 203, 486, 487.