The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-12-01
Marine Court.


Nov. 20.-Henry d. Bassh and Ann T. Bdssea n
Richard c. Hope This was motion 70 set aside the
order for the arrest Of defendant the ground that
the Court had jurisdiction the matter The Court
reagument Of the matter before the General
Term.
Salmon W. Alhs u.s. John B Opsron -This WA An
action to the of prom ssory note made
by defendant payable TO his order $500 II ap.
peaied that the note given to @ B. Coy deceased,
late lawyer Of this city and that the plaintiff nted
that the nete had been given him by get discount
ed in the New Haven Bank This he did do but said
al Coy owed him $3.50, he would keep as cola.
teral security for the payment of his The defsnd
ant objects that the plaintiff is not the legal Of
the least 40 far a. 10 authorse him to collect the
sum from defendant Judgment f0i defendant, with $40
John La,linw Thomas Larltn This was an action i,
$500 for work. labor and services performed by
lantf for defendant carpenter, during the years
1850 81 t2 md 49, on various buildings. The parties
TO the ectit brothers. and considerable acrmouv
was evinced the trial The plaintiff in isted that
there large balance due him for services and that
the defendant had repeat ed ack nowledged IT. The ia
PENDANT called raj Witnesses, whom it sh own
that the plaintiff late March last admitted that he
and the defendant had ,etd and that defendant had
paid him in full Ju gment for defendant with $40 COSTS
Samuel H.1lJm ana others Parsons &c Goldsmith -
This was an nc on to t4o0 value OF certain
gooe ana merct anoise 'od ~ plaintiffs to defendants.
The plaintiffs called salesman in their employ by whom
the sale TO defendants On exsm
appestd u at the plaintiffs had their claim to
the witness that the witness had commenced actisn
thereon anst the defer dants the same cause and
that the same hs been dsm ssed bat that assign
ment OF the claim to tha witness was still in existeue
The plaintiffs offered show tina there was no consder
alton paid at the time OF the exesnton assign
but hat made to the witness merely for the pur
pose of convenience Th the Court refused to ao bat
decided that the claim DO reassis ned to PLAINTIFF
before the title could be restor,d TO them &C.
thorle them to bring the action Complaint dismissed
with $40 costs.
Alfred Mees assignee Of William w. Hceis Ltssack H.
Simpson This action brought TO ecovsr one per
cent commission $l6,t0 90 for the sale Of house
and lot, No 90 Prince street. New York belonging 70 de
PENDANT 1t appeared that agreement OF sale OF that
property made bet1esn defendant and Eus4 Ennmp
son. which she paid 500; bat when the subsequent
payments became due size failed in their perfarmAns and
forfeited her drs ns almen The plaintiff claims that
the assignee II the claim the agent between the par
ter and that the defendant promised to pay him
OF one per the value Of the property IL the
sale shoulds he effective There several legal aues
on involved this action but the defence insists the
assignee was agent and attorney Of Miss Thompson
the purchaser Upon this subject the testimony h so
conflicting that Is lot necessary to examine the legal
questions II Is not disputed that the deed OF the pro-
pery drawn by the assignee the request Of the de-
fcni ant. Judgment for p.sintif for 81
Samuel Whiting Wtilidm DiLbse and william
White This action to the value of two
checks for 5000 1t appeared that the checks were 40
cemmodatiop checks dated In advancs-that they were
sold to plaintiffs for value That he made demand At
the bank for payment thereof, which refused for
want d funds The defence that there had bean no
notice Of payment to the maker The Court decided
that such notice not necessary and gave uisemer
for the plaintiff for $500, and Sl2 costs.