The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-05-13
Superior Court.

fresen the Chief Justice and Mr.. Justice Sanford
MAY l2.-DEcIsoNs.-James r. Brady The Board
Of SuperrisorsThis before us under the
following circumstances. Plaintiff counsel for the
Corporation OF New York two years during that
period he applied to by tho Board Of Supervisors
in regard to their duty he drew up various reports
tended the Board whenever called upon and in short
acted the general adviser of the Board For these
services he commenced action against them aud the
case was referred to referees who reported consdera
bic sum in his favor; ii Is brought before
aside the report The defendants set up two-fod de-
fence-frst, they say that Mr.. Brady was bound
to attend the Board Of Supervisors in his character of
counsel TO the Corporation and that any services
dered to the defendants covered by his salary
Corporation or counsel We have not considered this
sumo the position taken by plaintiffs counsel to be
correctthst thore is right Of action and that he is
BOT precuded by the consideration that he rendered
those services counsel to tho Corporations the
main ground Of defence is that action be main
tanned against the Board Of Supervisors. We think.
under the present state Of the law this description of
action cannot be brought The report therefore, must
be SGT aside.
TINS case an insurance of $4,000 effected by the
snn ION on one of his vessels on voyage to the Pacific
latter place home TO this port On her ret turn home
the bark was wrecked seriously damaged that
immediately informed the hereof what had hap
pened but in the mean time, he proceeded put on
some temporary repairs amounting to about $1,000
On the 11th November 1885, the day they received
letter. they wrote back to abandon the vessel. The
captain however eailcd for this port the 10th No.
yember, the day before the abandonment made and
the vessel arrived here without any
$4,000 Under these crc umstances the sole question
whether It was total or partial loss The defendant
insisted that before the Abandonment was made the
vessel had sailed then her to this port and
there therefore, reason for considering her
total loss The condition Of the VESSEL however, at
the time OF the abandonment constitutes the right
to abandon and it is clear enough they had right to
abandon her, unless they were bound to bring her to
New York; but OF this there no evidence. 1t ap
pears that the captain in putting on the partial re-
pairs acted for the best Interests Of all the parties
and it would and contrary to the gene
OF his right Of abandonment that because he
those partial repairs to be made for the benefit of all
the parties, the owner should be deprived Of his
cognized right If the vessel could be brought to New
York without those partial repairs the would be
faith and therefore do not impair the owners right to
abandon. Judgment as for total loss.
Perrin rs Johnson.-ln this case an action was
brought in a Justice Court to a Of money
from defendant which deposited in his hands, on
horse named Jack Cade. Judgment given for the
plaintiff which asked to be set aside the grounds
first that the Court had no jurisdiction, the bet
not being within the statute and, secondly that not
being within the statute it not unlawful We
think the bet within tho statute which gives juris
dcton Of this action On the other question: the lam
guaSc Of the statute is, If any bet is made upon
known or contingent event II Is unlawful Here the
event unknown and although it might be known
the plaintiff himself he could not prove it, and fur
Their, he was bound to prove 1t within week, which
made it a double contingency. Judgment affirmed.
John X Peters .1pPtHdn Librarian Frdsee ct al Re
spondents-This ease came up on appeal from one OF
the Justices Courts The action brought by the
Dor in building cistern TO house in Pearl-street,
owned by appellant There two defcnces set up
that defendant not personally liable, he hav-
ing only acted agent and secondly that the cistcrn
from the in which it constructed, good
for nothing verdict given for respondents in
the court below and asked to set aside,
the ground Of misdrection on the part Of the
Judge. We think the Judge erred, and that new
trial ought to he granted New trial ordered without
costs.
Before Justice Sanford.
AZ Nisi Prius-B, ooks Judson-This eause, which
has occupied the Court since Wednesday, given to
the jury this morning. His Honor said, in charging
the jury, that plaintiff brings this action exclusive
the Goth August 1S47 Of the store in Broad
way. which is the foundation Of his claim Defcnda mt,
ON the other hand claims that he dormant part
in the and that he furnished the capital,
&c. to the concern and Of course If he was dormant
partner, be equally with plaintiff entitled to
share in the profits and loss, and, such. nei-
Their he the other defendants would be liable
to the plaintiff in this action but If he not &C.
neral partner. then the plaintiff would be entitled to
they acting for him. That arises from the fact
that the acts Of partner good against another
partner One has right 10 confess judgment with
out consulting the other for partnership debt aud 1t
will bind the partnership properly The only question
in the is was Judson general partner II he was,
the plaintiff cannot fyou think he was, then
1t is for you to say what damages the plaintiff is en-
titled to- The jury had not agreed when the court ad
journcd and directed TO bring In scaled verdict
| on Monday