New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-10-20
SUPERIOR COURT-SPEcIAL TEEn.-ocT. l8-Betore
Judge BoswoRTH.
TBE SUIT AGAINST c. X. GARRIsoS-DEMURRER
SUSTAINED.


SUsTAINED.
Cornelius Vanderbilt et al. ast. C. X. Garrison.
The complaint in this case IN which S-OO OoO are
claimed against the defendant for alleged frauds upon
the Accessory Transit Company while acting as agent
of tler line Of steamships between San Francisco and
San Juan del Sur, Nicaragua, was, it will be remem-
bereo, demurred to, and to-day this demurrer was
passed upon and sustained.
BoswoRTH J.-Paintiffs stockholders in the
Accessory Transit Company corporation duly created ana IN
behalf others similarly situated bring this
on defendant for received by him we act
en- novmeS and agency ad- bet corpor
The complaint demurrd to on the GROUND ea sum
The complaint does not age that the corporation by H dec-
and nanagng officers refuse to bring an seton u IN name
the which pending the
what principle Garrison can be exempted liability the
corpora could be abished that all the bus es'
the corporation employed him TO transact was not clearly WITHIN
its powers He acted s agent and received the
MONEYS eys There is obvious difference between
action by the against the directors ana managing
officers Themselves for mssppns and squsnderng the cor
TO do particu acts of latter he
SodoS Itself JHGsme for
paas amend in twenty days which they may 10 as sdyl'ed
plaintiffs f. b. Cuitins for defendant.
Apoher suit is however, pending in whe5 the company
party plaintiff
Louis Rahm Az. Ca:hsne Rshni.
The evidence taken by the referee appointed 10 take
proof is conclusive that the defendant has com
the adueries charged isno proved that the plaintiff
has committed the Odultere imputed TO hmsAA Judgment Oh
PRACTICE DECISIONS.
Beocher agt. Kidd.
Action by plaintiff against defendant, az maker OF
two Plaintiff Is second ndorsee plaintiff SOLD stock to
one Heath took the in suit therefor The receipt OF
the transfer Of the stock were simultaneous me
notes made without restrict as to
Of any frauo pacticed on defendant the
soVer The verdict which the jury found in favor Of the de-
PENDANT clearly assnst and the law Ses os 20 s
preaded New trial granted With costs to abide the event.
The answer canuot be said to be frivolous. is not
obvious allegation that the note sued ON was styen IN
io,ny n,ecsted; that after there cont royey
detensnts liability and that deter dant Psa ana
plaintiff accepted s0 in sansacton may not be hed 70 DC
defense The make the answer more definite ana
csi.I no, a. sny suRrSston msdc as TO sh.t
sra sr certainly elued Motion denied with s. costs to
''''""""' ~ Coney act R. l. W. F. Clark.
Demurrer to complaint which states that oy force
OF certain acts proceedings particularly set forth the plain
of seized in fee simple Of has lawful title TO- and enu'ed
TO the possession Of the iSS are
zion The grounds hen In the points made TO support tae
proposition that the complaint does state facts to
constitute action unenabe lfthee be suy sub
defect in the complaint consists Ia MS aesAohs as
by which Pnth acquired tite and rsh to pos
ssson that former in fee norteAsed the
property but does not say when e ay So,d and S
plaintiff bought the sale and has Sherh deed bu hdoe
ton was by serving summons the mortsasor
he appeared in the action But as no ma. been
well pleaded the demurrer decided consideration OF only
such objections the complaint tue defendant has taken 10
points argued Demurrer overrucd. with liberty To an
ever in days payment OF costs OF the demurrer
GENERAL TERM.-Present OAKLEY, T. j. DuERi boS-
WORTH, ST cssos AND WooDRVFF, j
-PRAcrIcE- AMENDED ANswER-CoUSrER-CLAIM.
Vda palen at Lpham.Tksis appeal from order d.
retng amend the ofhs swerwhch
20 mskc IL definite and certain, by
stating wh the made by plaintiff and which defendant
claims purchased transferred to defendant De
the order two grounds Firt IL u
Is necessary that made by plaintiff and purchased by de-
naAut belonged 20 defendant when this seton
was order 20 constitute countercam, that
"a, alleged the states 20 b. "couu
claim and cause Of action existing against the plsnuf ~
bcf,r the commencement ot this acton" second:
That IA NOT the defendant owned thc no.e al the
commenced that u is moi enough that
defendant before expired and belonged 10
him when the answer was put IN 49,. ....,,
Held That the order proper one tAa ''''p u.s.
constituting his couutercm truly ana uy 81
Court the fAc stated "hethef one
exists Ii the answer amended that Tue uOo
transferred 20 defendant before this action commenced
no question arise the plescinss II the sctls un
quhes an aveTment that transferred alter st drought
then after the has amended 20 thus aese
the question can be determined by demurrer or uouoh O1
judgement account Of the tvolousness Of the answer
whether defenda defeat recovery and subject psu,
the OF the Acon purchasing demand against
him after the defendant has sued
eountercsm Either party has night 10 be sPPsed by
pleading OF the precise tets which his adversary touud his
Of action and 20 have then pleaded that there
may uncertainty whether the dis
mated question OF facts depend solely question Of
law by requne such certainty. the tired
diminished number and the end Of litigation often Be-
reached and AZ much expense both parties
Order sffrmed.
~ Ieooe,f act CAaA Gaspie and aL-Motop to dsuiss
appeal granted with SIV costs