New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-07-26

ICn.
Bu, the defendants counsel while admitting that h, Is
motion under that section proceeds upon the ideA
that uoge who grants junction MAKES NO ORDERS
the the junction the other for the security
Al that tie defendant may without moving 10 dissolve thS
injunction, move to modify the order, which WAS Also ~
gari for security, under the 32lh section OF the Coae
But think this view OF the defendants counsel errone
GUS al that the order for the Injunction snd security
constitute bat orterthe injunction being the principal
snd the security an incident mere condition And
surely IN SO It cannot be detached from the prlnaps
and deDominsted distinct order
Ard besides although according 20 the definition Of the
Cose: Every direction Of Judge made in writing sud
DO; included IN sudgment is deDouinsted order :.
400 Yet upon the same authority An application for
An order j. notion i 4Oll ", what Is the same
ting motion sn Application for order ana tor
Now the Defendants counsel when he ins
that there orders either insists ,ha, the
Al INJUNCTION -hich under the Code, is but msonl
ia an appc.On tor two or1ers-ibe order for the niunc
lion and the order for The securiyvhch proposition is
certainly in direct conflict with sae definition OF the Code
or else he insists that on moving tor Al nluncnon the
plaintiff makes two motions hrst tor The injunction
and them 70 give the security Bat :: IS manifest that he
does not move "a give the SECURITY lie would rather II
be cou.c OF course. O. relieved from It but the Code
says the judge shall ,e1si's him to give II
There another ground upon which TIE defendant rests
hi, motion that j. inst distinct motion, wnouy
ndeDepctn Of the Original motion or The Injunction ana
rot attempt 20 N, dry The crcer then mGGe lie con
ci-ves that independently e he peoVs"n- OF me s>ut-
The Court possesses the power and my and ought when
ever app-., that h- d-indsu i MT sufficiently ind. n.
tec agsinsine cons QGeLceso OF an injunction ID require
lor NAlWor;a. made 1890 Il hsd never h--n ne p-s.
tce of tI- Court Of Chtncer, quire security she
granting of UDcI. after il b>i been granted tue
practice then nrst established by he jtS g" t1"'e
rules vbich -uo,',nnaily, snd almost u-'sy tn
same IS n. 40 se,uon Of tn COZ. NJ Pr.Nfh ".s
n sc- ~ tn. ru- anN more thsn ny the roc-
here security ueg e,te 90 b. .s&-n. sh--- ,p
cieut security taken the Chancellor alter gard IS
t.th, the practice that IN where u -si@rf-d
70 taken the party tols o. De injured might make
speca application TO he Court for r-i-i' Tbs b. CID ex
~ ssly a ;uppemeLtto the rule tCayugt Bridge Com
pauy ', Mage Page X, lx2l But be never vent any
uii4. lie ne, altered the rule practice to al
l.w parry, where securiry htd been TAKEN but was
thou, p; o b. insufficient to apply o. the Court tr batter
sr,uriy In such the party US left 10 me v"fy
olSus and -Apeoi-ut couf'- " moving {" Dissolve ae
uI cn. ard then, the case cnigd Lin ~ H. "i "'e'
W better uriy in the ~ elton was continued.
The has no, MATERIAL, Alfred Toe practice ia cases
~ INJUNCTION LINDEN Vs. Fliiz O. Prep los Linden
- Ii, pLurn S,udf g. L 6os = 'e % Corning
v Try Iruu Factory IL has however made this die
f.tce .i,h sg,n,t l.. defendants motion, VIZ that II
ha changed flexible rule = prartc- ino Al Gnbendng
r-gL-rvn oi az ADO h~> pa ~ "uf oi the power Of
C uri To- DO -iier less th.n The statute pre-cb-s
Il before the cooe, OF equity would NOT allow such
notion be,aus- u against tb- practice, u ctnnot
aLa ought do because the prAo; not only
remains unaieed bot the code bs undertaken Ia regulate
specially the subject OF functions and security Sni ~
nothought proper to provide tor any such mOu)n tni tho
ceurt therefore now even u ~Oud, could not allow r.
Without considering therefore many OF the views pre-
sen ed b. The case ana urged upon the argument an ~
opinion that the o,on should be denied, with costs.
SUPREME cOURT-sFroAL rEaN-Beors Judge Edwards.
Mary Insrahan samra By Mad Wort, her next friend sgt
ton for Divorce, on the ground 1T nhdeiy and for
nault aDce anG plaintiff have tho custody of tue
miami child OF tn msrrisye Divorce granted
peryi.oI ct dsrtassasus ts
Mr.. Johnson. The pAluH. has tso rrs'de"c-s-ooe ia
New York lhe other mn C.ttarNugus lie mas osru faxed,
TOR ~ personal property IN both. The las say mat TOR
All personal -state wherever situated owned party
be shall b- faxed IA the town or ward wher7 ne resides
e.rfa tgf oh
81 Sir Jutu-on- ~" residences m he seuse 81 this
statute he poprr place 81 "Aaton-i being conceded
ilat he rsunut l-g,liy be assessed IN both
The SUI rsIsors. the local tribunals IN such matters,
akUg oppose views Of the law, have IN each case de
oio,d AZ aiusi hm lhosc at -~l"rk insist on their
c i'm ana tnose d, Catiaaugus refuse 20 re!nqush In
vi odenm. 81 Johnson as ~s- done IN Thomson vs.
r. Dtis. Il IEiLss Report, a72 files hIs bill Of utter
,sn-r praying that b. may allowed opay tn amount
Courf, BE- dschsge leaving the two rlvAi clam
ans e. iitg,i- between Themselves.
Io ibis bl the tprpor,tion counsel demurs insstin,
ita Ar johnson sh uG sher determine tor himself Sheh
at brt. Cuuui-s 81 h snd pay thai, aud re.is,
Il, rshHu claimant 81 establish ns auc he wrong
IL! "a BE- ,ieaied
Two tpeud.nr tig,iiops i; is obvious mu., % the
rss',, it sH'n Oe -ns'.i1- dsnd
person VINO BIAS really no iRsrss. IN either aust he the
sc'I ana sufferer 10 both
suppost. moreover 'h.; Mr. johnson as Is suggested
sboua t,he an spy-ai, 0y say 81 cer0rari from the
Sup.ryis.s Cai.agus County 10 tue Supreme Court,
sug n 80 pi-'rr' arptLer appeal IN Ike manner,
m IN tb- SaprsOrs - N-~ i0ra iouDty 10 the Supreme
C,ur; s.tLs TINS Duct AID suppose tSo seis at
Judges of lie supreme Court viewing the question az
i.su,- LIT very improbable O3curreIce-lu different
-As sboud amy. different conclusions, Nh johnson,
d. that event ios he protection, carey up ooth
cases 10 the Court % last resort
Or-fsn ~ another coUlse-suppOse h should allow
he Coecrs IN both counties n their peril, TO seize aud
=, l. furniture ana Ooth ia separate
utns TOR be could IN them IL one for thu separate
ft+spas.- IA hat similar round OF double
pens. aid double vocation mGst 10 the consequences.
% avert such DarrsssHruts rhe bill Of intsrpeader
invented 1t Is benign proceeding and entitled TO
IL favorable consderGiiun u the cOuris The only m
ouiry prr.cuted Is. there opposing claimants and IS
iD,, ar bona ride question - Dc investigated in order
90 determine the rght
cs-.y such state O things Indeed the question raised
that Of r-.dencs-s not Only fair one, but upon the
admitted facts one ;hs difficult known to the law
Ii- plaintiff had residence II thirty years IN the City
and lever intended % abandon H. lie never ia any
profession trade other than THAI IT lawyer and
prscced in any other place m al tho Cly lie sul Keeps
IL tns Cry house furnished FIR the occupation Of his
family, sud ~ The time OF the assessment in New York
IL fan ~ were IL is actual occupancy
On the other hand ~ the year -l, he hted up house
10 CsitMaugusfor residence, and when assessed
L hat country vas win his family in ia actual Occupan-
cv having Office H. where be transacted bis land
business which mostly IN tina: and the adjoining coun
lies ana which IS now the only business IN which he Is
Mr. Johnsop therefore, it obvious in point of fact
has residenoee although ia point OF law he
but one |, Is Tor The Court determine which is that
one As Mr. johnson has interest in the determine
oD be has right 70 throw the litigation upon those who
have.
The BIZ Of interplesdsr, accordingly having been duly
ted The demurrer overrued, and special order
entered, % be hrst submitted for approval
Ira + Gleason Frds Ginning
NeW trial ordered CoststJ ABIDE tI- went.
Dan.el L. ssyre at VIM ) Goody.
Ordered that receiver have lOsry ~ commence an &C
ton against Isaac " BrOwnell
Michael Oearty John " slaith-
Motion TO stay proceeding. es1isd
SCHOOL LAW