The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-11-09

obtained fmrepttiousy-and nt lie execution wa, the
iesuli OF mse imprisonment false representation OF
The death OF me kstaments donee. A donation by
deed made In view Of death, take effect must be as
clearly established and must as free nom suspicion
az the Will whose bounty IL seeu to revoke gment
OF the Special Term, In favor Of plaintiff afrmed win
| costs. Judge Davies dissented.
William C1ldOe dOt. Alexander WcOds Case OF land.
lord and tenant Tho Judgment Of the court below was
| affirmed. on the arguments with costs.
John Fly against John kasoD. e. al-Mohon for ne
trial denied with costs. Roosevelt r., dssented on the
ground that Latmer the plaintiffs assgner under the
evcerce, did not 'recover from tho Treasury Of the
United States duties or excess Of dus which had
been paid by Illegally exac'ed Of the defen and
rs his compensation, any was TO be one third OF what
ever sum or sums Of money he might recover for them
he and Of course his assignee, Ely has Of
ton against the defendants The Bruen suit at Bamore
was not Instituted by him-ws not subject to bis orders
and was not conducted at his expense. Nor the
recovery IN il recovery by him or Tor the firm OF Ma
son 4 Co.
A. Aa..-when tie parties told their arbitrator wha.
the questions were, and that they had agreed TO leave
hem to him. and directed him "so go to any men
The whole case; and 1t was 90 UNDERWOOD both by
hem and BY the arbitrator. he was not
And the award having been actually made and signed
within thirty days thereafter, was compliance with the
nd The sureiies judgment for plaintiff on the verdict
OF the jury. affirmed with costs.
VIM H. B. D'Iusnois, DC, agt Rufus Lsarin, Receicer
decree OF special term modified to declare the
confessed judgment void and also all The assignments
cep OF the property in New Jersey. Judge Roosevelt
makes void assignments whose object Is 10 "delay
nrder creditors in the collection Of their debts has
se 10 % q u %' ,o n,s @
State Whether an assignment unlawfuly obsructs the
ordinary process. Of the Courts Of Louisiana. is q
question for the Courts Of Louisiana OF that
question they will Judge when the assignment
Is interposed a. bar to executions issued on
heir judgments Property situated in Louisiana Is not
subject to the jurisdiction Of New York purpose OF
determining such questions. Az TO the assignments Of
| mt Huch
Die tines as be 1.-THE assignee) in his discretion may
think proper" they are not on that ground vcid Such
provision does not authorize an unlawful delay Of pay
ment An unlawful delay would be unreasonable do
Such delay therefore instead Of being authorized
~ the trust, would DO violation OF both its letter and
spirit.
Henry Ruhl Ct al, Us. Frederick Muller Ct a,-MulIer
gave written confession Of Judgment and written au
ihor,y 10 enter against him aE OF the late drn
OF Thorn Muller on the three pro'nssory notes
toned in the written statement. Alb against him was
not necessary that the statement should be
cnc And Il his creditors co not object he cannot The
iorm Of the judgment also prop,r To bind him as
Of The firm" rleantto bind only him individually
but the partnership property. This done by enter
ing against both partners Order Of Special Term az
iii med, with COTS.
0l-Dcs dgt Sdme-The cofs, reectcdsDy the Judge ct
special Term, were property dh allowed Order affirmed,
with costs.
Zeas Basset ag TIE Alias Mutual hssuronoe CA Joint
interest in 1.-THE question: gives the plaintiffs right -
10 obtained they might have right eDotn the transfer
OF be but not the trasfer OF noes given by parties who
do not complain Besides all the essential allegations
arc deniedthey certainly are not proved; and the
papers there neither occasion for retaining
The injunction Injunction dissolved without COSTS
Ftiiey Slctor, s al. oot. Daniel Turner, a al.-AL
though the defendants tustives ou Boston, it
Dol follow that they became residents OF New York Tho
weight evidence seems TO be that they were st on the
wirg. The attachment may have mpeded their flight,
but did not give them permanent residence When the
goods were stopped they stopped with them This was
not residence, but sort OF stoppage In transu. The
order appealed from should be reversed, but without
costs.
sisnm Mt executed by Bancser fully accepted
and never took effect a. an operative instrument 1t
also void on us face ans constituted no bar therefore,
TO, and gave no preference over subsequent judgment
creditor. Order OF special term affirmed, with costs
Samuel Sio m a9 lTliicnl A. Robbe Tie Same cgt A.
Us-uy and five ohersTbe Same aot The Same and too
eih7s The Same dst Richard Laurence, Dc Judgment
or defendants in each OF the above affirmed with
cssis We concur ID The views OF the Judge nj Special
Term:-
First That the lille Of The pantn to the premises in
quefton was orecosed BY The proceedings on the mort
second That II ouch proceedings were not in all re-
sIeos strictly regular s tho plaintiff, by his scquies
enco under the circumstances, precuded from calling
hem In question.
THIRD. That tho proceedings to foreclosc ma
icray irregular they were sufficient to give possession
and TO prevent recover, without previous pay ment,
endcr, OF the mortgage money and the value OF tho
Improvements
Foarth. That tender OF the mortgage money was at
s and that such tender any
other ter der. has been made.
Fifth Thai rSmucn .. II clearly appears that, under
the circumstances, (had . bill been died, the
Court would have awarded perpetual Injunction against
the plaintiff and the distinction bet law equity
rs abolished and both kinds OF relief are TO be I'D
min stored in court and in suit the defendants
are entitled to the same protection By way Of deisnoe e
,asn s p wOTc pave ssn 'nem ANN
Charles Amtn act Jossph r Crosby-The defeodsnt
purchased circus establishment, and accepted dsive
ry Of the horses &C. PROMISING % part OF the price, 70
pay of the debts then due Such promise 10 not an I'm
dsrakpg 10 pay the debt Of another but 70 pay the par
vsovp debt an IL NOT within the meaning OF the sta
ute Of frauds and need mot be In writing and the parties
benehcialIy Interested M It's performance may snstan
suit yrop in equity not :. a. . olmsssad At
In the matter Of the Petition Of Mopare Gsimolr, rrtH
e, de-Ihe appellants mot parties 70 the order,
Usrieyed BY It's provisions Appeal diamissed, with
Pciey IT. ra,d1Uort, d., ooL Rsubs~ n. Wood-The
alleged psymen. after issue Joined NOT having essn plead
II was merely matter for motion 70 stay proceedings,
either absolutely upon terms. And where, ~ In this
case "a question Of fact other than upon the pleadngs
shall arise upon notion the Code ply provides that
the Court, without consent may drea reference Such
reference ~ elect merely 70 norm we , y. Geo o.
thereon and that ALL whatever may be the form OF
the order. such an order 10 not sppeaAoe. Appeal
Jonos ConII,n and cnchsr act Eirin r. Heysin.-
Same OCT assignee topay debts has no author
bind The sssanor 90 a. 70 revive debt barred BY the
statute OF Limitations 10 extend the limitation where
the debt s tot already barred He d the agent Of the
assgnor, rot TO make promises or acknowledgements,
but apply the assigned property directed BY the
sigpnent HIS payment Of dividend Ia admission Of
claim on The property assigned, and not Of claim
the pcron Of the sssgnor. Judgment for defendant 10
each case affirmed.
The Cooperation Of he hdAcdia Church, &C.. d0ain,t
Josnes w. Bosksr and oth0s-Smith Hicks presented q
plant against several Methodist churches and applied
for Injunction 10 restrain them IRON selling their
cemetery removing any bodies therefrom Barker and
hs associates became sureties In undertaking entitled
In the cause, that Hicks would pay ali damages
sored hereby should the oour, finally decide thai The
be ascertaired by . reference, n 90 directed. The
Court did 90 decide and did so drccs, and the
referees report OF N93 90 WAS duly confirmed.
Hicks, nevertheless, neglected 70 pay. and this
suit brought against his sureties They insist thai
they NOT bound by the report. We think the report
duly confirmed without appea u conclusive both upon
Hcks and hs suretes, by the express terms Of the
dertahing was suggested that demand should nrss
have been made Of Hicks Although not averred In the
complaint, the omission was not objected 70 In the de-
PENDANTS answer. Was II made ground Of excep
ton n the trial Upon the bill Of exceptions therefore,
the Court In support or VERDICT must presume the de-
mand 10 have been made and proof Of 70 have been
given or waived. Judgment Of Special Term affirmed
with costs
lamar Ao<r< NJ JoLn A -Jud9meut Of special