The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-05-29
First DisGrict Court.
LANDLORD AND TENANT.


MAY 26.-Ehzabeth. A. Gloucester Thomas Gibbons,
tenant, and William Lynch and Others, undertsnants-
on Of Premises N HUDSON stree.
set forth in her complaint that she purchased and
csved aconveyance Of the premises in question from
Thomas Gibbons claims to be tenant Of said premises,
under hiring from said Emmett that said Gibbons Is
first day Of May last and that the sum has been do
Danced OF said tenant hat she Is informed and be-
eved that William the other persons therein
mentioned occupants Of portion If the pre-
misses, and they together no and continue in
session Of said parts thereof after default
by said Gbbcns the OF said rent without her
permission" On the return Of the summons the I'M
dertenant Lynch appeared by his counsel Mr. Waldsn
capacity Mr Lynch and other persons being
possession Of the and in the occupation thereof
complaint should set forth 10 what manner the
proceeded sganst claimed to be possession, whether
A. assignee. Of the lease otherwise in
orcer that he might appear and contr0vert such fact
that the Supreme Court held that such allegation
necessary and he therefore dismissed the proceed
ings,
IMPORTANT CHATrEL MORTGAGE CASE.
Before Judge Green and Jury.
MAY 26-Eh West against Thomas Mcintyre ord Beja-
min J. Cdrr.-An action to 500 damages for
unawfully taking and OBTAINING furniture tho alleged
property Of the plaintiff of the value of that sum.
The defendants in their deny that the plaintiff
was the owner OF the property In question: but that
VIM. H. Chester the owner and in p,ssession OF
,he property and that the defendant Mcintyre
which placed in the hands OF his defendant Carr
constable to be served according to law that said Carr
BY virtue of said execution, levied upon and sold ah
furniture The plaintiff read in evidence chattsl mort
gage which had been A'ed IN ,he Registers office,
Ds the property h question: and then calls defendant
Carr a. vitness. who swore that he constable,
and that by virtue Of the execution in favor Of his
defeno he levied and sold the goods in question: that
Chester. The plaintiff then proved by another witness
that the constable was notified of the mortgage before
the sale Of his leD also notified that the goods
a0i nv he for& nd
ts nsel restd his The def ndants counsel
n owed Tor nonsuit the following grounds list.
Ibat there evidence to show why Chester con-
tinued in Of the property mortgaged; that
such possession being unexplained, conclusive evil
dence Of fraud against Judgment creditors and that
there is question Of fact TO be submitted TO jury,
equently 1t Ia the duty Of the Court to nonsut
I'd That the constable had right TO sell the property
in question: the purchaser would receive merely the
right ttie and interest Of Chester, the mortgager.
The Judge granted the motion both grounds taken
by the oefenc ants COUNSEL and referred the
Hill W. Carnley, Kerr ans r, p COL, In which the
Court OF Appeals ruled that tho officer making the
seizure and sale h not liable to the MORTGAGE although
he cell the property generally without In any way re-
cognixng the lien Of ths moras and he deliver pos
scion to the purchaser the Court in that case Says
the mortgage would net be deprived Of interest
which did not recognize the mortgage, would the
purchaser under sach SALE acquire anything than
the In terest which bound Dy the execution wit
the right OF the nortgaeer to the possession and the
equity Of redemption This is q case in point and
mutt therefore, nensuit tie plaintiff