The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-07-03


Jrsn 3o-Jomes n Dey Minot c. Morgan and Others
DrcisIos filed among other things. to set aside
that the judgment confessed security for certain
advances made under "a contract which is luxurious and
that upon an accounting (Which is also prayed for in the
billy would be found to be paid and praying for in
junction to restrain the defendants from executing said
judgment The defendants to dissolve tie njunc-
ton on three grounds That by their the de-
PENDANTS hsve denied the equities Of the bills That
the debt for which the judgment confessed Is In
dependent debt connected with the contract and
therefore not to be by the accounting under
the contract and That the judgment is entered in
one Of the courts Of the State of New Jersey and the
parties themselves residents Of New Jersey though
served here the court has no Jurisdiction As TO the
hrst ground the whole equity of the bill is not denied
Ibe execution Of the contract is admitted, by which
2 per cent commission is reserved to the defendants
ior the sale OF poudrette, Sc The very term ctmms
sion implies service to be performed and where COM
are reserved when service Is to be performed
IL has been sometimes a cover for usury II
seems by this contract that the l2a per cent commits
sion was to be paid whether the services performed
or not But the answer has not sufceAtly denied the
equities OF the bill otherwise As second ground
not be restrained hold It as possible set-o on the
settlement OF an account between the parties but
in this this rule does not apply there can be no
doubt that the debt upon which Judgment was confess
ed Is proper item In the account to be taken the
parties, and advance made under the contract and
so admitted by the defendants in their answer II is
true they state that exceeded the mentioned in
the contract to be but they had the right to
make greater advance and had the security therefor
And the defendants by their stipulation stayed the
execution Of the judgment six months which carried 1t
mistaken.
1t quite certain that it is included in the balance OF
account which the defendants claim in their
due them And by inspection Of their 1.-THE defend
antsO own account 1t Is evident that large amount
must be deducted. They ere plaintiff with receipts Of
poudrette at the close Of their account gross
received by them then whereas they in receipt Of
quantities Of poudrete monthly They to advance
half Of their receipts for sales Of poudrette which
they constantly making and yet they charged the
plaintiff, in their account with interest all the ad
vances money loaned They charge to him drafts
which, 1t seems discounted their own use and
accommodation, and which they Immediately re-
ceived the money They further charge him with the
amount Of the discounts and interest those Discounts
by charging him with the drafts when discounted in
stead Of when they due three months after
wards By deductng these items together with the
msion all $4,000 Of sales (they having charged
$1 0OO it will be found that by their account the
defendants claim against the plaintiffs is almost II not
quite. extinguished As to the question Of jurisdiction
We do not ish to be understood laying down any
rule to this question; but to this case Il
that Of the defendants resides in New York.
and that although the other defendants have their
houses and their families in New Jersey yet they
1t further that the contract to be performed
herethe poudrette to be sold here Certainly have
jurisdiction over the account and this judgment form
ing part Of the contract would be not
to exercise jurisdiction that also But urged
in the argument and with much confidence that this
judgment In New Jersey. and the writ execution
In the hands Of officer of court Of I'd in New
Jersey have power to issue the injunction in this
officers Of q court Of foreign State, the judge the
clerk by prohibition We de not seek to execute suoh
power. and II that which repudiated by the
Supreme Court Of the United States in the two
cited from Crarchs Reports (Dggs Wocott Cranch.
49, McKim vs. VOORHEES,, ID 279); but have
right to restrain these parties by injunction, while within
the jurisdiction Of this court The motion to dissolve
the injunction must be denied, with costs.