The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1844-02-12


67tc money 20f 572c-three months money 25f a75c.
Bourse Jan. l3, haEpast Three o'clock, pm-Fve per
cents ias $50 Thee per cents s2f 6sc Bank Actions
326e 75c Rente dc Naples 1861 SOC Belgian Five per
cents 1870 1888.
-
Court Of Common Pleas
Before full Bench
FEB. l0.-DEcIsloNs-Inomas j. l.oodaan VS.. Nm. H.
Cary ct a-This was an action OF enant for the non
acceptance OF quantity hair bisties furnished IN
pursuance of under seal and the plant sought
to damages the difference seween contract
price and the sum Tor which they were sold after render
aud reiusaand the expense. which plaintiff
subjected by reason such refusal The defence usth
ed the refusal the grounds that the contract not
fnlfed-,ha brstles instead Of being clean
The Court charged that the plaintiff had right TO sell
alter REFUSAL and h0 could establish that the property
satisfactory it'll the oil the contract that he had
right to recover the difference and the loss by incident
al damage On the point raised that even poroh was
not in accordanee with the terms OF the eon',ac the de-
fence could not refuse me whole Inc Judge chhSea
that twenty or thirty casks OUT oil the one hundred ana
OF hair or two or three out OF the seven oil br
Ties were uhmerchanabe then the deicnoe could eose
the whole 10 this portion OF the charge the pan ex
cepted Inc Jury found i"r Tue defence Inc Plaihun
moves Tor trial The opinion Of the Court was that
there was no error in the trial and the verct was CON
| hrmed with costs
1ohn ~ Mndeeeger VS.; nm CogatA motion 70 sci
aside report ol referees was on an action Oh
to recover one quarters rent IRON the defendant as inc
security OF William W. Everts, Tor the house NO 10
SIP So The premises were reet to third party VINO
pad the FIRST three quarters rent to the palnti ana Tor
the IN had also check, on Tue
Butchers and Drovers' Bank, drawn by himself ana
partner winch wa dlshonoIed me reefeg gave deci
sion In avor OK the p!antin Tor Siio " Inc defence
moved TO SET the rep oftade as the iatn hau oy suh
acton waved the right 10 collect ior he tenant Inc
defendant made the following points =
ls The taking OF Browns CHI OK Tor the rent due on
the LIST day OF May suspended the right Oh acaoh against
Mr. Eveits the tenant dulhg the time aoweu 'or Pay
| ment.
ID Extending the time oil paymentto the principal IN
an cases discharges the surety aiortiori-h eieoi,o
disabling himself from tho power presently " oooo Ms
L
I'D. Inc acceptance Of the check win new anu aooi
uonal security, was discharge Of the laDty o. tne
original Tenant who nc mad peen hothed' couio nuve
secured nimsen ny aSre's' Vi o'her"iSe' "i'N "' s
| OF brown. :,
Inc piahtll heo 'nat Tue surety wan no. als.ha ss
because here was no agreement 10 give time 10 tne P
clFai tnat the surety was NOT reseh.eo o ooeiSns
ment OF the Prncipai debtor inc acceptance OF .he
check could be regarded as an agreement 10 give e
invalid Tor want OF confederation as was III iact no
new ecurity The plaintiff already had the Iish OF us
tress against Brown the tenant and this check as si
as appears in this CASE could not have been
against MT y Brown who mad no participation III the
premises The acceptance of the check was mere COLA
,erai security 10 discharge surety on he ground o.
the OMISSION OF the creator TO proceea against e
pal debtor even when requested 70 90 70, y mus. appear
within the jurisdiction oi the State IN which ts sun
against the surety was instituted, ana .ha 'e V ~
proceed until the principal debtor became insoVeh aho
| unable 10 pay: !.
Inc court heid tnat the pialh1in peing .no W.
stead oil collecting ms rent from the thou8nt ~ "
exert power which the Ia" gives MIN vi ius M
the under tenant the rent due 10 ms tenant anu apply ing
such money 10 the tenants account ms ne nus
to DO but had he right to receive from the under tenant
anything but money; or II ne dd receive any .nhg ise
was the tenant thereby discharged surely .he ten.
nant Tor such rent would nave peen sa'hcis, M
such distress mat the under tenant had paio me
ha landlord ana tue cnecN gwen ana Ieseise -. ie
PiantIh andlord) would pc sucieht evidence Vi suc
payment to prevent the distress II Is taa me surrey
might have PAD the piaintin ana teh comPelieo MS ~
cipal to pay him. put the dhcuy Is that Tue "a
dsShargei py an On Inc pal, " W. na
withthe under tenant wnch tna! as
OF the power Oh cohecuhg ms rent ianuAou ''e' u,
take 10 coect rent IRON he uhaef TENANT Win ~uo ue
has no controhe must follow ms authority carefully ne
receives the rent ne must credit u 70 ms tenant ana ne
thinks proper to take note or check in winch
note or cheek ~ not due ana thereby en 81 .ne %
pay that ACT prevents Inc saaUn ,
tenant) from msrainhg aha consequently M -. '
rom ms opiigacn 70 pay Zen. s ,a.se >, 'nn lns -
20 dschargeo. OF course ms surrey ~ du a. I'D
tne deiay sui inc Cour is o. oph'o thu, io u.sy -
uIscha,gea, aha hnl lne iuies vi With uI p" ~,
ues-,ha RECEIVING sho'e is NO payei uiess aI'o"i-,
agreed be received as snchdoes not apply IN e pre-
sent case Mappesrea tnat the piaihh w% ae.ing "n'
aer any from .ne 70 M ,nG rsn ON
the under-tenaht una. RUE miBh men oe ." .e
pnciPe OF me pan. osng assn, 'f p e ' +; und
that the check did not pay the dent But II ne acted
merely under the power the law gives him. oil recovering
from the under tenant the rent 70 apply on Of he
ana ne nng %s rd
debtor TO the amount So received TWAS suggested in
the argument that the tenant might pay the rent 10 the
plaintiff and receive the check Of me under tenant and
on returning 70 sad under tenant ne he tenant m8h.
or connecd WIN the PAYNE, o. inc Ieh. u"s 70 ns
BY law after the rent became due whether he had paid
the plaintiff not, and any act Of the plaintiff
vent him from suing the under tenant would discharge
the tenant; and he the Of the plain
til with the under tenant prevented from doing
he had paid the plaintiff then the Court thinks he
the referees report be set aside and the referred back
to the referees. Costs to abide the event
u