The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-12-31
The Court OF Appeals.

THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES or THE NORTH AmE-
RIcAN TRUST AND BANNING COMPANY, AND THE
NLw YORK DRY DOCK COMPANY.
From the Albany Argus, Dec 81.
The decisions OF which we give lst in another CO.
noon. Among the important cases decided it viii be
Is that OF Leavitt Receiver OF the North Ameri
can Trust and banking Company, rs Bstehiord aud
others The decision Is adverse to the legality of the
trust deed and accompanying securities, as having
been made in violation Of the act Of 1910 forbiddn
hsses not payable on demand and without interest
thus destroying the preference which trust 10
Messrs falmers Mackillop Dent Co., over the other
DrcIsioNs AT rHE DECEMBER TKRM, Isio..
Decr,es .aNrlRed Benjamin Woodward, appellant,
va. Hudson Carpenter ct, al respondents Lemuel
Sawyer and Diana his wife, appellants Va Eleanor
Clark and others refpsndents Robert Anstie respon-
dents, vs. Nicholas q. kortrght appellants Nicholas
North American Fire Insurance Company, respou
dents; AbJsh Fitch and wife, respondents, Vs. David
snt =. ana sor ssy ss. Ss
c,vsr Of the City Bank of Buffalo, respondents Tho
mas J. Dudley, appellant VS.. Jonathan Mahsw, re-
srondent; Jsrrmishs Stewart respondent, william
Small ard others, appellants
N,r TRIAL granted, Costs 70 abide hs sueHt. Eliza
a. Vromsn, appellant VS. James ZONES, respondent;
Henry Lyon appellant vs.. John Bunn respondent.
JHd gmenf Rsrrsed-Ntw trial granted o. abide
ne ersnf-samspn Boicesn and Ferdinand Rusch,
plsintihs in error Andrew Polot dsen Ssnt In
ror; John MARRIED. appellant vs. George Douglass,
spondent; John MARRIED. appellant, vs.. Jonathan Cool
hue and others, respondents; Charles N. Marshall,
responeent Frederick l.. Vultes aud BENZ amin l..
GUN APPELLANTS Thomas n. Kinney, respondent, vs..
Abner Nash. appellant, William Buel aud others.
pesnts Trustees Of the village Of Lockport,
srondents; James Brisbane, respondent VS. Joseph A.
Adams. appellants Charles Oakley respondent, John
l.. Afpinwal and Others, appellants
judgment .4girmed-Lev Harris. plaintiff In error,
Ralph clark and chers executors sc ,ofsdney Smith,
deceased deis pdsnts In error; Cyrus r. Durham aud
Arson Moulthrop plaintiffs In error, John Mauro
defendant in error; Luther Hall, appellant vs. John
Farmer and Harvey W. Doolittle. respondents; Morris
Bennett and Jesse Bennett plsintifs In Jo
teph Miller defendant In error; John A. Campbell,
plaintiff In error, Edward NJ Clark and Robert g.
fl..L 49,. NasN
plaintiffs In errsr, Richard Turner, defendant in
error; William shsw and Others respondents Va. To-
ss Vi Jos s'ns sno.snt n
Burcke, appellant, vs.. lsaac Eckhart and others,
respondents; William 7 Battle appellant vs. the TO
chester City Bank Frederick star and others, appel
lsnts. VS. Jonathan Child and others respondsnts
su,l Dsvis respondent, VS. John Allen and others sp-
pellsnts; New Hope Delaware Bridge Company. apps-
liant vs. the Phoenix Bank respondent, Horace staples
appellant, vs.. Joseph Fsirchild respondent; John o.
Nein, respondent vs. the Buffalo Fire aud Marine In
sursnce Company in the village Of Buffalo appellants
Decree Of ne Supreme Court 'er.rsed aud ne Decree Of
re .asnstsnt T,ee Chancellor affirmed The New York
Dry Dock Company appelts VS. the American Life In
sursnce aud Trust Company John Duer and Others
respdts.
N. Van Beuren, respdt VS.. Richard w. fsrmalee aud
others sppelts.
Common Pleas e6irmsd- William r. Dsaies, appel't, vs..
George Mann jr and others. respdts Elihu ). Smith
ard others plns IN error vs. John Kerr and Chss $.
Decrs Rercr,,d and new Decree uttered wiftou costs
20 either porfyOrson Bostwick, executor and devisec
OF Andrew Bostwick, deceased, aud others appelts,
vs. James Atkins and wife and John l.. Tunison,
resrdts
Decree Reversed IN part, anS.9rmsS IN part and fur
er Decree 10 BE- entered uifhom Nv either party
against The ofher-Dsvd Leavitt Receiver &C., sppet,
vs. Richard M. Blatcbford and others. respd't
The ceurt decided, that the trust deed and accom-
ranying securities illegal and void the ground
that they were made in violation Of the Act Of
1910, forbidding banking associations to issue or
put In circulation any bill note not made payable
on demand, and without interest. The effect OF the
decision s to destroy the preferences which the trust
gave to Mesrs Palmers, Msckillopy Dent 4 Co. over
the other creditors OF the bank The other questions
which had been discussed in the cause not de-
cded but left to he disposed Of In ths suit in
which the receiver had been appointed
Judgment of supreme Court rerersed. and that Of ne
Recorders Court afyrred-Mai. A. Campbell, plaintiff
In error, vs.. Samuel d. Butts, deft In error.
The snniverssry Of the battle Of Trsntop eele-