The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-12

guPREdH coURT-GENERAL TERM.
Present-Ai the Judges
JAN. ll.-Jdmes Vincent and Ebrtyfpe otAsv Pscis-
t0s vs, Cornelius Vandeybi-In this there wsre
over one hundred suits brought by parties against the
Vanderbilt line Of Steamers for breaches Of contract In
not carving them across the Isthmus to California
Come Of the suits brought In this court and
In the Common Pleas and have been reported in the
HERALD from time to time.
The following opinion, written by Judge Holman, and
concurred in by all the Judges, was delivered BY the
Court. The order was drawn up by Judge Woodruff Of
the Common Pleas, and concurred in by both Courts.
By THE Couxr-An order made the 18th Of October
last Special Term has been brought before the Gene
raj Term and for the PLANTING attorney to show
foowE-lst. Why the attorney Of the plaintiffs in
a he
christian in full and the residences Of the plain
ti in the actions rsspecys and sPsc1yng the state
the street and number whore they reside % To pro
duce such plaintiffs personally in court to furnish
proof that the plaintiff in each IL living. Sd. To
furnish proof Of the authority Of the attorney TO
such authority Il any, was comm unicated in writing,
to deposit the same with the Clerk. 4h In case the
for costs in the actions on whom the plaintiffs shall ap
pear to be nonresdents Of the State 5th II the court
allows the actions to proceed then to show why
the complaints should not be set asde not oonforma
BILE to the 142d section Of the Code why the plaintiffs
counts statements Of Of action they win rely
and that the residue be stricken out. 9th. why the
Stayed, until such action shall be determined; and for
such order generally as should be proper This anpea
In 70 the
The ground Of the action 10 in substance that the de-
fendant was common carrier, and owner Of certain
line of vessels and convey used in the transport
ton Of passengers and baggage from the port Of New
York to the port osan Francisco California the way
ceived the plaintiff board of Of the vessels of said
line as passenger to be conveyed from the city Of New
That 1t then became his duty carefully convey him
as he reasonably could without delay farnish him
&c--to have provided sufficient room and not over
crowded the same. The complaint then states varous
the injury damage resulting them and demands
Judgment for the damages The authorities cited are
and Of the
johnson Brley, % Bar and AID 6400 this was done
in the case Of an assault where num1.rs were present
plaintiff The Court say that the rule had generally
been confined to actions OF qat tam and eectmens be-
rally ignorant Of the plaintiff his person Bayey JUS
tce said that previous to the statute Of Westminster
plaintiff appeared in person. unless he had special writ
authorizing him to appear by attorney. Then the
pleadngs tenps and defendant had the prvi-
lege Of seeing and knowing who the plaintiff was. After
in order that both parties may have fair trial. that the
worten and Others VS.. smith, (eJ B Moore, liO,)
case for libel by three plaintiffs rule made alb
solate that the plaintiff give the particulars in Writing
other plaintiffs and in the meantime all further proceed
ings to be stayed IT was submitted that the knowledge
was important to enable the defendant to justify
otherwise to shape his defence. See also McRoeman Vs.
Patrick a Towards, Rep $685. and West Hous
parent, wherever the practice of the seems
TO require its application II Is here sworn to that
facts are stated to show that some others are
probably so. Again., it is not improbable that
Mead a Co., Of st. Juan del Sur, hold the whole
most of these tickets beneficial owners or as
sgnees See aidavits of Thompson and Cross. The de-
fer dants entitled to the OF the plaintiffs and
their residences to prove this fact their evidence
necessary and to show tbat Mead Co have the right
to sue. Again, lie has right TO such information in
non-residents And as IT appear that many Of them
were forwarded by Mead Co. from St. Juan del Sur to
San francisco by sailing vessels in 1852, The prosump
ton Is strong that some of them are non residents.
The difficulty Of complying with such requisition in
this case forms no objection to its being made We
consider that attorney who in court 10 bound
TO know the place OF residence and occupation of his
client, that it may be disclosed II the rights Of the de-
PENDANT require it. This part Of the application must
be granted The next branch Of the motion relates
the names Of these numerous plaintiffs. It's true
hat in general tae hority of attorney to be pre-
umed from his appearing on the record And the
tatute has only expressly provided for the pro-
duction Of his power in cases of ejsctment. e r.
$685. Bat the present case !, is we very psS
ant II is made out that certainly many Of these passage
tickets have been transferred to Mead Co., and are
Is, it may be assumed. vested in that Arm single
suit then in their for all such tickets would be
TO such extent any right Of action asignable
II appears by the afdavits produced by the plain
agreed to be by u.s. that power powers OF at
torney, executed by number Of the plaintiffs to
Mead Co., authorizing them to employ attorneys and
counsel for the purpose Of enforcing their caims II Is
allies ed that this power has been burnt It is not al
legged that draft copy is not in existence that
Evi he d cr COPY asa directed to
the attorney, doubt the Court would ask for its pro-
th0r1ty 10 another TO employ the attorney.
cases the undoubted right OF the Court call for
few it Is considered as an absolute unqualified right Of
the defendant ihus, in Clark vs.. Holiday, 70 Miss.
into the authority an attorney to appear
The court IN Tennessee recognized the rule in Giles
PIES CASEY q Yerger, 32s In McAlsxsDder Wright,
impose upon the defendant the task OF showing that
rights night be jeoparded unless II observed The
leys Rep 8 Car, a4s See ako Cantwen VS.. Herri-
is r1s Rep IsS and West y' Heu.oS .
was not subject Of plea that attorney
had authority to prosecute the suit. The proper
seems TO be the settled law in England that plaintiff
questions the attorneys pover to sue for him, and
tnori,y viii suce Ssies vs. Msries asS Enc law
and Fq Rep 20; Allen VS.. Bone, Beavan, 4e3.) We
consider the circumstances Of this case calling upon
the Court TO exercise its TO require the best and
most perfect exhibition OF the power under which be
acts that 10 given, the original authority under
which his authority IS derived, being lost The order
rpon reading and Cling order show cause herein and
afidavs OF the defendant and William X Thorne and
others, submitted the part of the defendant and also
the sfidavits Of William siiIman, Esq, and william H.
lively ane ao upon reading the several
the said respective plaintiffs and hearing counsel
IN behalf Of the parties respe :tively motion Of
Horace f. Clarke, Esq Of counsel for defendant order
ed: That the attorney for the plaintiff In several
above entitled furnish In writing and verified BY
OATH 10 the attorney for the defendant the names and
present places Of residences Of the said plaintiffs respec
uvey In the and TO the extent specified in the
order TO show that IL to say with the Chrsta
names Of the plaintiffs in each Of said causes ia
which such Christian pame Is not stated in the
plants respectively and specify ing the State county
town and village where each Of the plaintiffs respective
~ resides and II they, any or either of them, reside