The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-12
strf u Marine Court f.N~ -@
ACTION ON A aCARANrRH 10 PAT A euAMER Horn.
M Ia. La

Ensfore Hon. Judge Phillips.
Fra~ci. H. HelmS - Chester Drtcr. The plaintiff
Kin landing II isss In TIE i.i q that year Hosy
Barstow and family boarded with Meyer, and there be-
them plaintiff sssss that defendant contracted that
he would pay the bill from that time forth After the
testmonyof the plaintiff the detsrdant moved for
The defendant bases his motion for . nonsuit upon
two grounds viz-1. That the plaintiff is the real
the express purpose Of bringing this action T. That
the promise made by defendant ~ proved was to pay
GsO aaf Sss o
and shall now only notice the other. The position as
summed by the plaintiff that the credit in this transac
tion given by Meyer to the defendant, and that
therefore, 1t original undertaking by the latter
In support Of this it 10 shown that Meyer had some trou
him he could board him longer; that then Barstow
referred to the defendant In this city, and requested
IL va. e. e o &
family. After some conversation between Gulick
and the defendant the latter stated how he had be-
of his uncle and said he would him and induce
him to advance money for his .nephew-at the Same
miy turned out Of doors let him stay on and win sec
his bill paid and on this promise Meyer allowed him to
run Up blu 9, over 100 Tna .serTsFds Gulcs called
had not yet Barstows uncle that he did not want
to advance the money himself but wanted to get it from
money is as safe If you had invested It at per
cent ny TSrd ,s a. Is ton and :.
for this BILL and had already put the papers in the law
yers hands for that purpose These facts would
to indicate that the defendant had contracted originally
to pay Barstows board and conscious that he had
done On crossexamnation of the witness, however,
ii appeared that Barsow had given note to Meyer for
his board that had tried to Induce defendant to
aorse it, but that he refused and that this note re-
newed and that the Last note remains unpaid There s
no doubt in my mind that under the testimony produced
defendant original contract not to pay debt Of
Barstow but to create and Ipay liability Of bis own,
from the cross examination of the witness satisfied
that the doctrine 10 Is Wendell applies and in caps
nd taking into the giving Of the notes BY
Barstow for this very claim, and their acceptance BY
Meyer is sufficient to place the defendant promise
Before Judge Thompson.
JAN. l1.-Ireldnd Harrington Is. Ensline q Schri.
der-The plaintiffs made their joint note for $685. dated
August 1854 and payable in four months thereafter.
The note then handed to Mr. Haskins, a broker,
for the purpose Of getting it discounted for the plaintiffs
took the note said II he could it he would give
him the money on it. Walters went to the defendants,
at their stors No Nader lane and passed the mote
Of this proceeding went to the defendants and demanded
return Of the note The defendants refused to deliver
it. This action is brought against Ensline schrider for
wrongfnly OBTAINING from the plaintiffs the uote. The
Court held that the defendants the bona de
81
to the note and that upon faurs to pay the
Walters the party to whom the plaintiffs should look
for their remedy. Judgment for the defendant
Charles BunaH rs. w. Z. Bachelor and others.-The
plaintiff brings his action upon two promissory notes
made by the defendants for $478 o. The defendants,
w. T. Bachelor, Charles Il. Sanford and David Marcy,
constitute the firm of w. T. Co. The defence to the
action that the note had been paid The note
originally given by defendants to James Murray,
who endorsed it to Austin b. Trowbrdge for bill
Of marble. The plaintiff then discounted It for Trow-
bridge before it became due After the note given
James Murray purchased goods to the amount Of
which he is represented agreeing to have applied
these two notes But it appears that at the time Of this
purchase the notes not his and that the plaintiff
took the note without any knowledge of any equities
which may have existed between any Of the prior parties
thereto. judgment for plaintiff for $4s4 II and costs