The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1846-01-31
Price Two Cents.


before Judge Ulshoener.
JAM 3O.-Braisfed and johnson u.s. Ferris ef sI-This
cause was resumed TINS morning After counsel had
after returned verdict for plaintiffs fer S257.
George johnson rs. Cornelius Bsorum.-Action to re-
cover $780, tho amount OF bill of goods sold by plain
tiG aud his late partner to defendant Defence stated
that plaintiff sued surviving partner and that tho
laid in the declaration before the death Of tho
partner and non-suit asked for. which denied
The jury found verdict for plaintiff, for the amount
Riehard E. Mount u.s. PAabe and .qnna Suysam This
was action brought to recover S900-$S00 for sum
advanced by him, and 500 for costs The plaintiff is
lawyer; he was sometime in the month OF October last
called on by the defendants who stated to him. and his
partner, Mr. Allen, that they had $500, which they
would lend on bond and mortgage, and wished them
raj applications made to plaintiff and his partner
One OF these applications from Mr.. Isaac Chat
between avenues and G. this application with four or
five Others they enclosed to the defendants; the defend
to on on Mr.
upon the terms mentioned in the application which
that $2ss0 would be taken on mortgage OF of the
houses and the bond of Mr. Chstterou the interest
to be per cent Chstterton spulatng that interest
should be demanded until the principal in
creased to $4,000 and wished them to go and invest
gate the title, and prepare the necessary papers, and
that the money ready to be paid at any moment. In
pursuance ofthese instructions plaintiff investigated tho
title, and pronounced il to be safe and marketable
one. and had the bond and mortgage prepared
advanced $500 Of the $500 out Of his own funds to Mr.
Ferris Pell, upon order given him by Mr. Chatterton
to whomhe Chattsrton) was indebted, and had the
receded from the contract and refused to advance the
money md accept the bond and mortgage The plaintiff
the first that although both ladies joined in EN-.
Ploying Allen and Mount to negotiate the loan and
to advance the $500, Miss Anna suydam never having
joined in directing Mount to make the advance and
there ws 10 maS out
Phoebe Suydan. given to Mount and Allen jointly.
and the advance was made by Mount alone Mr.. Bid
persons should be executed by both jointly otherwise
would not be well executed It was also insisted that
Mount The Judge denied the non-suit
DefenceThat the property was an securi-
for the to be advanced also that the mortgage
the face of il usurious it bang made for $4,000
with interest payable this at per cent and
0I was 1s nS tina, Mr. en-
Of usury. Besides, It subject to previous mort
gage for $4,000. witness named UndcrhiIl exam
ined who proved that at the time of the mortgage the
house was in an unfinished state and It would take one
third of $4,000 to finish it. Another witness exam
it, was from $500 to $4,000 Some other witnesses
were examined to the point, and the defendants
The Judge charged that there fact which was
undispued and that was that the plaintiff advanced 10
the ana Se was
by the plaintiff for the defendants, and at their request,
and that they afterwards refused to ratfy conclude
the contract there could be doubt but they would be
bound to pay il back; but upon this point you have
it, and il you think they both gave directions authori
ty to advance Internationally the plaintiff would be
entitled to your verdict You have also heard that
stipulation was entered into between tho
parties that interest was to be paid on the mort
gage, but that should be allowed to accumulate until
with the 800 amounted to the of So 000 Now
am not prepared to say If that simply the agree
ment, the transaction would ibe do not think
it would but the difficulty here is, the bond and mort
gage were given for $4,000, and interest that
from the date Of the mortgage at per cent, al
though the to be advanced to be only So 500;
under these circumstances think the Transaction
usurous and might be set aside. With respect TO the
building being unfinished at the time, you have heard
Mr. Aliens testimony that point He says that no
knew nothing about himself but threw all the de-
PENDANTS and that when Of them called upon him. he
left all to herself and she said good loan, and
wished him to lend the money am now speaking of
the value Of the property as appears to us from the
evidence and is clear that the first mortgage is oil
could bear. Now taking those circumstances they
appear the defendants justified in breaking on
this bargain For if plaintiff aud his partner induced the
defendants by Misrepresentation to make it, defendants
are not bound and be entitled 10 your verdict
but the testimony Of Allen and Pe goes negative that
dea for they both say that 81 900 Of the be ad
vanced was to be applied to pay of the old mortgage
Upon the othepoins,l agree with the defendants coun
sell both the defendants did not join in giving the
thorty to advance the money judgment coud be OBJ
tanned against them and they would be entitled your
verdict. Verdict for defendants.
For plaintiff, Mr.. Mason for defendants, MIR. Bidwell