New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-03-10

Gillespie agst. Bourerie.-Where goods
had been lefl security for debt and the debtor hs
such demand the creditor hsd up tile hmlef by
denying that he had any goods belonging to the debtor
and did not set up his lien Held that the eR waved
Sufern al the suit of LGCrence.-On an
application 10 the Surrogate for an order sell lands Of
deceased persons 10 pay debit and on appeal TO the
Court his order In thai respect the heirs OF the deceased
well as his personal representatives, are proper and Ms
ee'ssry parties Motion granted usess appellant take The
proper steps.
Childs against Barnua.-A sealed in
tuument under the OF frauds, Imports consider.
alton, and where In an agreement TO pay The deoI OF
another II imports 10 be IN consideration Of ST. Il Is not
esssry thai that sum snould have been paid Il Il
enough thai there is liability 10 pay IT, which can be en-
forced by action.
Marsh. at the suit of McCarthy.-Judg-
ment for plaintiff The bill Of exceptions.
Jenkins. Sheriff, at the suit of Wilson,
The seton in this being for affirmative done by
Sheriff viz false return and not for mere neglect Of
DUTY, the local. being conhned 10 the county IN
which The Sheriff rssidesJudgmeni for defendant the
made
DarLeq against Mulhel.-On scire facias
against Terretensnis and demurrer plea Held that
plea good hen denied the seizen IN the words
used in scre facAs and that the objection TO the plea
merely denies eizen OF the whole lot and not OF shy part
oft Is to mere Of FORM and will be disrsgarded
Fan IViRkle against COnStdntine.-Tw
points having decided in this viz that the deed
81 conveyed he we tite SO well 81 her husbands they
viii az ain be considered by this Court
Where the deed OF vile Is good without separate
acknowledgment her execution Of may be proved by
proving the handwriting OF the Witnesses who are dead
without proving also that she executed syo'untany and
without cOmpuson from her husband.
HaSSard against ROiCe.-Where a guar
dan without obtaining permission Of the Court expendshis
own money IN improving his wards property he cannot
age; his recovery such being hmi ed such ex
per dres were necessary to his ward according to his
circumstances and situation in le
J0ceu against Belden.-The questions
involved being purely of and of law they viii not
be considered wril of error.
lNcDermOt against Pdlmer.-Where the
of lots in this City agrees with mechanic for the
erection Of houses those lots on the condition that the
owner will advance the builder certain sum on such
houses. and when finished will convey the houses and
lots to the builder taking back mortgage for tee price Of
the lots and the amount advanced that contract for
The erection Of buildings within the lien law:
Carpenter against Smlh.-W here there
dispute shout facts and from hose facts appears
that the plaintiff is entitled recover matter OF law,
1t error for the Judge who tries the csuse to refuse non
auit and to submit The question TO the Jury.
MeVer against DOlCS.-Where there are
several against parties and payments made
and not specifically appropriated by either party to any
particular claim they Ia payment OF debts IN me order
Of time.
Simpson against BealS. Where an agent
is directed for bs principal for the sale and de-
livery OF goods the make the contractn his own
name II such The OF the trade and thereby the
principals object be attained, and The agents making
pals liability him In such the principal is bound to
make good to hs agent 10 action for money paid me
order.
Mechanics Fire ms. Co. at the suit of
Leeds A time policy vessel does extend TO bring
ing her into port though she voyage when the time
expires the policy contains the usual printed ause
shall continue aud endure and unu the said vessel
oored "a hour. in good safety such printed clause being
controlled by the written clauses which most truly shew
The intention.
McMahon and ,oife against Harrison.-
professed gambler, who puIsues gambling for veli.
hod is not though appear he has been successful fit
person to be appointed an administrator
Hdnford against ROgerS.-Where at the
same time party executes an ssgnment OF bond he
eces separate paper guaranteeing the payment OF the
bend but without expressing any consideration for the
guaranty the assignment and guaranty to be regarded
instrument and the confederation ofhe one answers
for and affects both
KingsIand against Watkins.-Order of
refusing appoint guardian al Item for
infant defendant person named BY the plaintiff affirmed
Brush against McGrdth.- of spec
isl term suki1g out portions Of pleading affirmed, with
Si5 costs. beside disbursements
Moore against HaH.-An order at special
term granting hearing on The report of Referee, Is
rot an appealabe order
Ashieq ads. The People-Matter in the
CourtbeoW appearing the record OF judgment
be brought into This Court by notion bat only
certOraTi alleging diminuiion.
A. 5. GAR, administrator, against &. A.
DAVIS Judgment Of Superior Court affirmed.
SPECIAL TERM
Before Judge Edwards
James 4. Berthe and John III. RverS0n
against A~6rOe G KiH9'laHd Mayor, ScAppicatiou to
dissolve temporary injunction restraining the Mayor from
interfering with plaintiffs line Of stages licensed by Mayor
and Hnasop River Railroad pspS ceTnsr 'S s1s
Thirty hrst-st but opposed, already referred to.
the & % a amer sseg III as ssSlon the facts OF
IL then tho Mayor has the power 10y ordinance OF the
by him under The City Ordinances, It certainly
be required Of him that he should show good for his
dciSl in is character and for the exercise of when he
csLno he made liable in civil suit though exercised ma
ercised arbitrarily and without sufficient cause which Is
eli that is alleged in this case (Msver rs Defendon
DEMO- III, ard the authorities then cited y
to the points OF plaintiffs having obtained vested
right by pay neut Of tbs eesalso that the revocation
foe ure therefore ilegasnd plaintiff having gone
to great expense IN carriages &c the Judge thought that
they have vested right It IL only 70 ls Of July next, I'M
lss revoked the revocation not forfeiture "but
rather The exercise of power which has been vested Ia
the Mayor 10 be used by him according to h best iudg
men Police regulation, without assigning any reason,
without the delay Of formal ta7 As TO expense, It
IL which applies TO a licenses but In this plain
fs distinct notice four days after getting them, that
the Mayor elect did not approve Of their censesInunc
ton dissolved
Before Judge Mitchell
Argument on the order to the Mayor to
show cause why Msndamus should not as TO his
refusal to license certain stage drivers, &c. was heard
Before Judge Edmonds.
MerTlck VS.. SUyddm, Sage d CO.-TO
recover property parted with by &, co. commission
out OF contract on which g. S Co held TO heavy
OF bail IL is commended that the business
recty and vaidly consucted, and motion made 10 dis
charge from bail Argument wss heard
Supreme Court. SATURDAY, March T.
GENERAL TERM.
Dennis Gillespie against Il. RIDE Bou-
yerce-Modon aside report OF referees denied with
costs
Thomas Sufern at the suit of w. r.
Laurence Adpinisrat0r.-Moton TO dismiss granted II
appellant within % days institute the proper Proceedings
10 me ke the heirs parties.
Childs, ADMINISTRATIVE, &c. against Bar
Man, Morris ana otheys.-Judgment Of Superior Court
affirmed.
Charles Marsh ond others at the suit of
Deais Mccarthy gment for plaintiff in the made.
John Darley against Patrick Mutbilt.-
Judgment for defendant demurrer with leave amend,
payment OF costa
CornsE,,s Y0n WInbLe a0aint COnstdn-