The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-07-15
Superior Court-.s.nerai Term


jew Ia -Drcisross John j. Paiaer rs. Waf,ss
Jsr,,nee. q. al In this cause petition presented
Tor the appointment of . receiver over the mOrtgsged
premises la the pieadDgs revealed The defendant
opposed the petition two grounds: first that the
mortgage VAS granted to the North American Trust
Company; that the Company Was fraudulently organ
izcd and consequently that the mortgage itself
Invalid; aud secondly, that the m-rtgasrd premises
v,rermpy suh'cent for payment II the sum clam med,
should there be decree for the plaintiff Judge Dusr,
who delivered the Judgment Of the court said that
TO the brst objection set up by defendant there
DO allegation that the mortgage not executed
At vas either In cart or IN the Who'll. satisfied aud
~ vas only where such defence set up that the
court could deny receiver they would, therefore
oNrrule that part Of the defence IN regard to the
oth'r defence was positively sworn that the mort
geg,d premises were net sufficient security aud the
evidence ON the other side did not show that they
Both grounds o. defence must therefore b. uyerruled
and receiver granted. unless the defendant shall
within web from the date 81 the order Iolxs
$4,000 To the credit 81 this
bsoW'r rs s ,gdan and oihsrs.rhis was n creditors
hl aud was r,ietrcd 70 reercs to appoint receiver
On the oSamuati,n the rrfer.e having notified that
TIE dtitnasnt. tbe Judgment dsbtor, bad property.
mHue an order r is dshvrry to the receiver Several
lrce'ding before the referee IL wa decided that the
reiore' was correct in making the order, and the
Ton for arciV,r j. denied with rosts The plaintiffs
moi,n t. extend a.. recvi'etshp to the property in
questi'n allow ed, with SIC costs
Dtrord ond oih'Js -. Hsywaa -Defendint was sued
fr rent ot premises No l5s Eouery. he premises
were originally IBssd To one u udersu, aud the plain
in accepted from him surrender Il tie term aud the
Instrument of'urrrnder produced In conrt NJ evil
That the plaintiffs having thus recognized Flaldcrou
~ ihe t,naht were excluded aud caunot now charge
the dei,rdabt
Ioei' 49,. Dag oud oii,rs-The defcndept, Day, exc.
eutfa deed IT trust - the defendants, Morgan aud
wayne ~ porting g. convey 20 them ;20o0--thcn in
Nctitd ~ busnessin tfut 20 secure the sane. and
apply th. intetet 30 the separate % his wife The
Deed also allowed the trustees II they thought proper
TO lend Day the money without Interest, his oso
Ette or bonn Tho money or property was never paid
over To- the trustees but they took the grastor
HE note fer $1,000 payable 70 them a. trustees. and
Without interest Day, not io1g after, failed. au1
granted an assignment of ell BIS property 10 Morgan,
placing this nvte Of 81 600 aud few other debts IN
rr'frtod class Held, the trust decd wa fraudulent
ara void ~ 20 cred sbn became after the
ton q the deed and that the usgnncpt also void
bsdpoh -. Rih oad ofAers. The plaintiff natural.
lied ctztn. clsned certain real estate IN this city
heir 81 Andrew Mather who did IN the year ls2S With
oct ise aud ine'thte ~ the property IN question
be plaintiff s phew OF he deceased bein1 the
Il deceased sister, Who vas allen Held that
plaintiff clai8irg through bis mother Who allen,
could ret inherit Tho would have been Different
bad the mother died after the adoption Of the revised
stafuiee.
Rendsg o.. Parlr e. Motion Tor new trial. upon bill
# exec gfirns, denied
The Court adjourned. sine die.