Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 08.pdf/214

 Nicholas Hill. never an aspirant for office, and was only interested in politics so far as questions of principle were involved. He was always a man of great public spirit, having inherited from his father a strong sentiment of patri otism which nothing ever diminished. No collection of Mr. Hill's briefs or opinions has ever been published. The library which has been already mentioned, and which is now the property of Mr. Hand, contains many such briefs and opinions bound up with cases in the manner usual with practicing lawyers who are in the habit of arguing cases on appeal. The opinions to which reference is made were such as were written in his private practice. His judgment in legal matters was so highly appreciated that he was often called upon for his professional opinion. In the volumes of his reports are many notes of great value, which illustrate the clearness of his mind, and the thoroughness of his research. As an example, reference is made to the note on the writ of habeas corpus contained in 3 Hill, page 647 and following pages, which constitutes a complete treatise on the subject under the statutes of the State of New York, as well as at the common law, citing decisions up to that date (1842J. From the time of his resignation of the State Reportership in 1844 up to the date of his death in 1859, Mr. Hill's practice was mainly confined to the argument of causes on appeal. During this period he' probably argued a greater proportion of causes in the Court of Appeals than any other coun sel. Indeed, it may safely be stated that no lawyer in the State of New York before or since (with the exception perhaps of Judge Samuel Hand), has during the same length of time taken part in so many argu ments in the highest appellate court of the State. At that time, country lawyers and lawyers in the city of New York were not generally in the habit of going to Albany to argue their own cases in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court.

i89

There were a few leading lawyers in Albany, like Samuel Stevens, Marcus T. Reynolds, and afterwards Nicholas Hill and John H. Reynolds and some others, who were most usually retained by lawyers in other parts of the State to argue their cases on appeal. Among these, without any disparagement of the others, it may truly be said that Mr. Hill was chief. He was noted for the keenness of his analysis, the clearness and conciseness of his statements both of fact and law, and the excellence of his judgment, which enabled him to discuss fully the material points in a case, without wasting his time or energy upon minor and unimportant considerations. Perhaps no lawyer in the State of New York has ever had so happy a faculty of condensation, without sacrificing any point. This was, of course, to a great extent, owing to the possession of a keen discriminating intellect; but it could never have been accomplished unless such intellect had been united with indomitable industry. He loved his pro fession as few men in this country have ever loved it; but it is the testimony of his cotemporaries who knew him well that, while his life wras devoted to his profession, to the detriment of his health and the shortening of his life, he had many tastes outside of the law. Again, to quote Mr. Nash, who knew him well, "he was familiar with the best English literature, and a lover of good books; and when he could throw off the thoughts of his work, he was a most delightful and congenial companion. His tastes were refined, his sensibilities lively and delicate, his nature frank and without guile, his heart warm and true." And he says, " For myself, I can never forget how much I am indebted to him for example, guidance, encouragement, nor the unfailing kindness which in boyhood and ever after wards I always received from him." A sketch of Nicholas Hill would be entirely inadequate without some reference to his briefs and arguments, for it was to these,