New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-11-25

missiOuers Overruled WIN costs, ana uSClre''l-
frming perpetual Injunction with costs
yqmeE r. T. GRAHAM ads Benz H<ater6ATy'-
Motion for new trial denied with costs
SUPERIOR CouR1 Transferred Teym.-Polnts
IN the Decisions already referred to--JW4HR rs.
UesfeTren Shelf-The principal question was
whether the Judge in the Court below was lustl-
fed in permitting the Jury to take into cohsldera-
ton the fact that the party came TO tins country
Storage passenger, anu the probability whether
or not he would have done 50. under the clrcuIn-
stances. bad he been worth $1,000 or S3,1ou, as
claimed, and enabled to make the advance al
legged To have been made The Court thinks the
charge was correct and that if the Jury had gwen
a different verdict from that which they dla L
wouId have been set aside. New trial denied.
Boc1rdus ads B0g7rdas.-The Court thinks
that although the Referee might have drawn
different conclusion yet it was not so much against
the weight OF testimony as to justify the court III
setting the report aside I'm
Hl1SSon vs.. Lunch ct ai-The object OF the OH
was to enforce specific performance on the part OF
Mr. Neefus, to purchase q certain property, We
believe in Brooklyn Of Edward Lynch. ne
plaintiff was not a party to the agreement II
being between L. and n, the one to sell and the
other to buy; but 1t was agreed that certain
portion of the purchase money should go to settle
bond and mortgage to Husson, ana the residue
of the purchase money applied to the payment OF
creditors Of Lynch. 1t was also agreed that the
premises should be valued BY certain persons, to
be named BY n and L.; aud if they differed, an
umpire should be called Mr.. Neefus deposited
in the hands of Mr. Halstead, $500 which he
agreed to forfeit if he failed to perform according
to agreement. Each nominated a referee but
Neetus subsequently, discovered that the party
named by L. creditor Of L. 5, and was in
terested in making the valuation embrace his
debt Upon that ground Neefus, and this Co1rt
thinks very properly, refused to go on and gave
notice to his referee which the latter obeyed not
to proceed. The other referee, however, proceed
ed himself to make an estimate, and the object OF
the bill is TO compel the acceptance of the deed
by Mr. Netus In conformity TO this valuation
1t appeared that difficulty occurred as to the
$500 which had been deposited with Mr. Halsted,
and the parties submitted the controversy to Mr.
Halstead himself, who finally determined that it
belonged to Mr. \. thus signifying his belief that
Air n. was justified in refusing the contract, and
it appears to the Court rescinded the contract.
The plaintiff the Court said, seems to suppose
as the purchase money was to be paid to him he
had direct interest and the agreement could not
be rescinded. In support OF this there is some
evidence that when the agreement was entered
into Mr.. Husson agreed ii there was not sufficient
to meet his mortgage fall he would make pro-
portionate abatement and look only to Mr.. Lynch
for the balance.
Our opinion is, the Court continued, that the
equities are not at all changed by that agreement.
To be effective it ought to have been part OF the
having been reduced to writing comes within the
statute OF frauds.
The case turns upon the question when an
owner agrees to sell, and the agreement con-
tans provision to pay debts, can creditors en-
force its execution. We think there is no such
equity. The parties continue the contract and
the agreement must be considered to have been
rescinded.
The case came on appeal from Judge at spe-
cialterm, dismissing the billHThe Court said it is
anovel case, and this may be considered prece
dent Decree affirmed
ODonneH and Clark VS.. KelSey-The present
controversy arises under the act of 1885, which al
lows certain persons to erect wharves docks, &c.
on certain of their lands at Brooklyn, in the yici
nifty of the Atlantic Dock, not beyond the perma-
nent line The question is as to the boundary
! line to be drawn from the shore.
Ii the line were straight, the Court said there
would be no difficulty but it is a curvlng Shore
with indentatiOns, and when filled IN to the per-
manent line, and Strengthened makes but 645
feet of water front, instead of 49, $50 feet, which
existed as the shore of the cove, &c. The true
way when the whole district is to be laid out, is
to apportion the new front pro rata. This would
| give plaintiffs ll3 feet of the new line for the %
| feet owned by them, but that is not the pre-
| sent claim
Messrs Hayemeyer, Geo. w God, and other own
ers of the line, have compromised and adjusted
with each other their various boundaries, and the
NOuTt Cdu OLiS pass uipL tdC NOAi444CIlAS S4h444S
of the lots owned by the parties IN this suit
THE Court cited one or two cases as to bOunda
ries Tie Court does not think the matter so
fixed by law that it is compelled to decide with
out reference to other propretors, bat all the pro-
prietOrs are not before the Court. 1t will be I'M
necessary to disturb the djdstments which have
been made. All others on the north side have set
tied so as to conform with and continue the line
of the streets. which is desirable The defend
ants caused their lots to be laid ont, and filed a
map, running their line through the confer of Har
rison st which is claimed to be correct, and the
plan contended for by them would cause great CON
fusion and we see good reason to alter the
line thus established. We think the report OF the
| Commissioners to have been correct, and the ez-
Ceptions are overruled The streets, as far as
south side Atlantic dock, do not run IN straight
lines to the cove, but slantlng and each owner OF
the present front claims right to till in his prop
perty in the same direction with the streets, till
it reaches the water line which cuts off, conse
quenty, some of the water fronts the north
side of the cove to those who now hold them, but
all OF whom have adjusted the matter, we believe
except the present parties
GRAHAM ads W'ataburQ.-Dr &. wrote from
the country q letter to his sister Mrs. Graham
stating that he would become security for house
on W aren St and Broadway, and the house was
let TO Mrs &. on the stength sfthat letter and she
took possession. DR.. q. afterwards refused to
sign the lease In the lease the rent of the farni
ture was included which was net in the letter, but
the item was Withdrawn, In suit. the landlord
obtained verdict, and appeal IS made. The
| Court thinks that DR.. d. was bound by his letter.
although it was written to his sister. Hewasnot
bound to sign as surety while the furniture was
included, but when withdrawn could not avail
himself of that to get rid of the liability ofthe let
| ter. New trial denied
In another suit against DR.. G by same plaintiff,
to recover quarters rent, there was nonsuit,
the action not having been properly brought
! Nonsuit sustained.
DEc1sIoNs BY JrDeE CANpBzLL-V a1de vs..
Decentralization denied
81 Anayd VS. De Betrced0n--Aotion to set
| aside attachment denied.
may sell these at auction and retain proceeds till
order Of the Court.
Before Judges Duer and Mason.-Stacy Pitcher
! rs NJ L-nrE nud Er1a E.-.Lra1d nna Cltu of