New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1847-04-28

pxc,uoS, IN cpAScEsY-Befcre Hon. Anthony l.
Robertson, Assistant Vice Chancellor Taylor
Va Jacob CroeaingsAi,A and oih1s-Certsin parts Of
the testimony sdmitied others rejected circumstances
Throwing doubt upon the truth o. the certificate OF the
officers 40 took acknowledgment Of the mOrtgsger
In this case and he not being Introduced by the com
plsnsnt 10 explain them the testimony OF the unim
peaehed witness, who s~esrs that the mortgage was
written after the death Of Mr. Proctor the mortgasor,
must control and the mortgage declared forgery -
Bill Dismissed with costs.
Jos,p1 Bolloek and oiAes vs Relber Smith and Oths-
Decided that unpaid portion VI the note given Tor the
purchase money Of the premises IN question as valid
equitable mortgage and prior In lien 10 the mortgage exc
cuted 70 the defendant L. Brown gwen fOr preceocht
debt The claim Of the defendant NJ s. Brown for tne
purchase nouey the agreement TO resell being cub
sequent 10 the transfer OF that note 10 the Asgnees
Hunting cannot be used TO extinguisn IL sale Vi
Sa.S,i Say1 Va. Hstor H. Sanbora and O,les-De-
eided The agreement of the defendant Ssnoorn to give
the comp spsBt SPECIFIC portion oil the prohs OF tns
hu.,ne.s "A for his services, made the
former a partner as regarded third persons that the
complainant consequently had an equity to have he ~
sets spilled 70 the payment Of those claims and me
assannent of them by the defendant Sanborn 70 pay
his individual debts IL invalid Decree accordingly
Henry PurSy VS. Max Cornell dad othus decided 3
Tbs, usury set up is not proved thai the amount
loaned not being entirely satisfied there can be no or
der made to deliver UP securities that there Is no sucn
relation established between the complainant end oe-
PENDANTS 20 justify the taking an account IN this
Court That the right of the defendant Cornell 10 the
shin claimed depends merely acts not on any docu-
nnents and the ompalnant cannot ask mere opinion
from this Court whether such acts are void BIZ dis
missed. -
oth.-As the i'm proper testimony received by the Mas
ter may have formed the basis OF bis report ordered
that the be referred back 10 him Tor reconsder
don. -
Edrayd Stone Josiah r. Kendall ard Others The
defence up the mortgage IN this cause Of SANDER
of the defendants le, by the complainant must fall
The ens appear be friendly advice and there
fore privileged not the injury TO credit produced
By ssnder cannot be Sc. 70 defeat contract 10 pay
money tn night 10 redress does not arise out OF the
agreement itself and cannot be claimed by way of re
equipment the defendant has ample medy at law. De
cree for foreclosure and sale
Augustus Cotozaaa Charles r. Maoy-The agree
poeut ght be rescinded must at sill events be
tanned IS to the general employ Of the defendant
which IL entirely distinct from the purchase OF the de
PENDANTS Invention This superior knowledge OF the de-
endaut furnishes ground for RECESSION Of the sgree
nept nor do bis representations IS 70 other inventions
which were merged the covenant and entered into by
him The invention of Sawyer though founded on
toe same principle may not have nterfered with the
defendants Principle in such case not Implying
organization or mode OF operation" but element or
rule or law of nature" Even II IL did, mutual ms.
take as the quality OF csPsbiity of being patented
10 mistake Of fact which can DO relieved against
Decree dsmisslDs bill
TSAs Darcy Err. &c. "a. Bridget Cdtt49haH ana
stAos defendants, who beyond the degree OF
peunity Of brcsners and sisters children take
nothing OF the estate of the decersed tess,or Tho ex
ecutor having neglected to invest chsrgeaoe with
proht and he IL to be sllo wed six months TO invest
the amount of interest charged against him must be- re-
duced accordingly Decree against him for balance
thrs sscertsned.
James Scan Ct al &c. VS. Rachel BAHley Err &c and
sArsTne mortgage In question cannot be- considered
paid, presumption arises In this case that Mt rye
the OF the complainant who was also executor
of the o the defendant sgreed OF intended TO
pay It. when he took assignment thereof nor IS
there any proof that no paid for with the assets oil ine
estate The claim OF the defendants for an OBJECT must
al.o bs rejected being uniiquidsied which
defeats IL legal setOt and the debt not being To-
CURED credit of the mortgage, II not forming lts
consideration they not arising OF the same usnssc
ton there being equity from any fraud or conceal
ment and IL being for money, and there being no df
Guilty in the way Of recovery by nonresdenee insol
yency com cated account the like II TAILS AS an
equitable setoff. Decree Tor sale for amount due
Jsmes Moir ct al vs. Richard Lyon 1t al The e.legs
ton Of pay In this O the mortgage not being
sustained aud the setod coming under the principles
sctsled In tho above case Of executor, rs Wins
ley executrx There must he decree OF foreclosure
Jsm<s Loren Err. &c Robert B4.otd an Others -
Construction given TO the will Of Robert NJ. Steel de
ceased, and decree for distribution accordingly