The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-07-11
Marine Court.
Before Hon. Judge THOMPSON.

Before Hon Judge Thompson.
LIABILITY or EXPRESS COMPASI les UPON DEMANDS
RECEIVED BY THEM FOR COLLECTION.
July 9-Lery rs Wells President Of the American En-
press Ctmpony OF about the 18Th day of Decsmber
1852 Of the plaintiff delivered to clerk of the de-
feDoanfs for collection Of $l04 Oh. The note
iudorsed by the son. Mr. Levy ct the request
6sfepdants at the time Of its delivery. The maker aud
epdorser of the note lived at Marselles in the Safe of
Michigan. The note became due at'er it went into
swcre that he had received notice Of protest.
there evidence that the note had ever been
tested at all Ia the month Of February the ~itaess
Levy, went to the Office of the defendants, in Wal
street. in this city, aud demanded either the note orr
The amount due upon it. A clerk commenced to
search for it, for entry of its RECEIPT ton
but finding nothiag upon the books, said he would
make further Inquiries about it of parties
Buffalo The note has been delivered over to the
plaintiff, the amount Cue upon it The suit
brought for uDlavfully OBTAINING the note-plaintif
claim pg damages account Of such detention the
amount expressed upon its face. BY prnted csrd Of
the defendants IL appears that they advertise collect
such depau ds at q certain OF commissions 1t
the note from the plaintiff and to establish the fact they
offered to show what the custom of their Office upoa
the reception of notes drafts for coection-thst
whenever note or draft Is thus received, It is mme
Catey entered into book kept for that purpose and
that this instance there entry OF the reception
such nofe the referred In ths action but
the Court held that such evidence wholly
ba The Court further held that there existed doubt
but that the note was left With defendants for
at their cce in Wall atrse' about the 18th day OF
December and that tits still construcvey IN their pos
session aud that they answeraoe to tho plaintiff for
ed for damages arising from neglect thsr
in effort collect il have it protested-thst
their liability is precisely the that Of attorney
who receives demands for collection But negligence
having shown is this by the plaintiff yment
was therefore rendered for defendants
Before Hon Judge Phillips.
Alonzo r. eastman rs. A. Warren Sn.ih This
action brought to Sl87 so for rent
of premises No. 90 Prince street II that the
defendant had signed lease binding himself to take
premises for term Of years and make improvements
thereon not TO exceed the of S3 coo That the
he agreed to the lease the agent of the pnat
repeented the walls of the building were twelve
inches thick Before the plaintiff had signed the lease
which had been signed by the defendant the defendant
discovered that the walls only eight inches thick
and that therefore he could not make the
la prove nents which to have been made rasing
the building two sories for Masonic club
Under this state OF facts he notified plaintiff that he
declined taking the lease. Judgment for defendant.
Dorid ID Egdn John Tbogan.--7hs was an actiof
brought to 500 for the of the plate ~
placed by the plaintiff lessee, in the wineos otae
us Canal street. The store underht os |
plaintiff to the defendant, who agrcsc pay the for
500 for the of the glass ia the bow wute oil
three years The defence set up the. real IS /
Frauds and that the agreement conceyhntif in I
tate and should have been in writing. w ths store
sisted that tho glass OF the 6xteat Tor plain
snd formed part of the freehold. Jv
till for 500 ana costs.