The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1842-11-30
Court OF Common Pleas.
efore Judge Ulshoefer,


Nov. 2s.-Mc milan VS. NJ b. Hart-Trespass against
the Sheriff Ter taking goods from plantif on execution
against Erastus Wheeock 1t SHOWN on the part of
the paintif that some time in December last the plaintiff
and Wheeock entered into agreement whereby the
plaintiff was to procure the endorsements of ono II. s.
McCatty to unlimited amount; and in consideration
thereof be entitled hall the profits arising from the sale
OF merchandise at 1913 Front street. where said Wheeock
was then doing business The endorsements of McCarty
was accordingly obtained 10 a considerable amount-it
was then discovered that Wheelock was greatly insoL
vent and the plaintiff 10 himself and indemnify Nc.
Cary ior ms endorsements procured from Wheelock
Dill oil sale OF the goods and took possession
and removed them to his store Of Front and Full
ton streets where they were subsequently taken by the
Sheriff. above stated On the part of the defence il
was conended that the sale from Wheelock TO plaintiff
fraudulent that consideration ever passed except the
endorsements Of one Thos. s. McCary who as well as
ell the parties to the transaction were greatly ipso
vent.
THIS JupGE's CHARGE.
GENTLEMEN THAT the Sheriff seized the property and
sold it as the property of Wheelock beyond doubt
the plaintiff pointed out this property the property
Wheelock, and made claim to himself then he ought
to fail in this suit Did the plaintiff point this proper
ty to the Sheriff as the property of Wheeock only
obtained through him. As to the agreement to furnish
endorsements is undoubtedly true that 1t did not ope-
rate a conveyance of property. Did McCarty give
dorsements during these periods of time Did he furnish
these endorsements pursuant to that agreement not
II these transactions entered into with view de-
fraud Mr.. Wheelock then il must fail The plaintiff had
il at his option bring this suit action ftrespass
rover, or replevin In relation TO admitting rights
the law disfavors them. You ought to look upon them
with doubt. II you think Mcmillan had a clear know
ledge Of what he was saying. and know what he was
about, then you have right TO hold him The ques-
ton still remains in regard to the purchase OF molasses
Was included in the bill of sale You arr TO
whether the plaintiff in this suit title 10 this moas
ses Possession is eviden OF ownership The only
quest on is Of consideration lie did deliver the goods
am bound to say to that the plaintiff being posses
defend him in it. the title of the plaintiff in this suit is
founded in hosty then you are to award him verdict
For Plaintiff, T. Van Antwerp and f. Sanford. For
defendant, J. c. Hart and N. D. Blunt.
BEFORE Judoe In Oils
Julius Crdnsr and Henry Graner, Jacob s. Ptatt.-
This action Of replevn the value of
cases OF merchandise 80 having been obtained back
by rcpievin The plaintiffs merchants in Germany
and were in the OF business In the habit dealing
with the firm of saus, Ashrood Co between whom and
the plaintiffs small balance standing. The firm Of
Sslus not appearing give satisfaction the plaintiffs
our by Kderln as their agent So OF goods and
Kidern having arrived he consigned them Arm 70 be
sold on commission. They remained there some time
when Kdern desired TO get all the property of the plain
t into his control and bill filed in Chancery.
The plaintiffs not satisfied with the pursued by
Kiderlin, removed m, and appointed Blydon their
agent who produced as witness in The case. These
81 cases in the possession Of Gronen,hs Co and
Blydon called on them deliver up the property For
they did not do but deliye only small
portion The further delivery stopped by the advice
OF counsel Mr. Edwards who then acted for 0ronenhal
Co. Under the authority OF the Court Of Chancery ia
cob s. Plat was appointed the receiver the possession
to remain in the hands Of either Of the litiga.
ting parties. When Gronenthail G. Co. ceased TO
deliver, it was anticipated that Plat wanted to get
the goods into possession Bydon notified him that he
must not take the property, or If he did so, he did II
at his own risk Pla however, possessed himself Of it,
Before this Bydon had interview with Plat and re-
auested settlement. They went together to Gronen
tha but he said he did not any thing TO do with
Blydon. Plat was warned not to take any the goods
for Gronentha had not got them in possession iy his
ov right-hey were still the property OF the plaintiffs
Bydon requested that the goods be delivered TO him. but
he refused to do II unless Blydon paid him $40 which
Plat protested to have advanced the goods In evil
dence the order given from the firm oil the plaintiffs
for Gronenthal TO delivar the goods TO Blydon The
whole amount Of goods In this replevned and
merely nominal
This case is still on.