New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-05-26

ne PI.na ssrced no 20 's S ~, 'i the stock
ne Any h s e.lSS ca sG he .s.s
SS.ros. :' lSA "a Tho p.is. .a .ssssa
"a %sssscrassy tho ID so1t fs,s hey whs%
Dc ss ,;.a the 10 s
ssss Of the 81. .Sas. :.s SIT; ;, icw o.
s. nj: a., .s. ,ss I'D soon Alter he 20 a
Of value. The deiendAn. ' I v,se being s25
i.i The r.srSsoqs .tsaso;i 81. ne were
nsDt reference % The ~ 70 vsss and undoubtedly
I'D mscs him and led eIa e %B5s dscns hat the DE-
Ssp ~ making =. 70 T ssy T.soSaSs
E..ast 30 was .s ; sisSesa ss1s dec.s TIE law
"st,sd whether tsSs o sSo~cds. hat history
se;si O ave "a. uaus mistake wa was sS.,a
lss qPO1 The 0 SoSsa' ms therefor b. entered
S.s% s' mat The Iss sR!as s iS E%
he asoi ha seG1y S F R So Th Of sspsS
81 &c ss, the plaintiff lis costa to be sdus'cd
William C. Gage sst William p Earle.
The fIsad ADD ~ .ai sS .e
om le Dc cudant the plaintiff are neither esab"ed o.
the s.moDy in this esose The complaint mutt Dc
with costs.
Harrison stephens ,gt Jas w; Elwel, receiver, &c;
The true construction of the I'm sec,fn OF tne
: ss ne q o .sc iST 1ss IRE
dated from the receipts for IRE n so from from ,s 9 Of be
seSree. sss primarily liable make good all FIRE Oss They
.s Ss' BE- s.''H Ssscs Toss
sPped to aPcsns the o. s b the eet,
sSt Of the funds in his bands
William H. Jolly sgt Joseph Carter and others.
Decree TO be entered tor accounting and declaring
psnsi j. Shaw sst Henry Dwight IT,, AID Anael st. John
The complaint IL filed in this cause TO have Cancelled
record certain judgments mentioned therein entered up
b. confession IN favor Of dssTdsn, ,d D"e a s,ST ~ .b
cause that for winch the Judgments given
than that .Ipies'ed the confession The plaintiff uds
a creditor Of s. S2 1 sn be- ess ssfS S.i sy be
esIoeIed Of record.
Gso,,e Pe,tIboDe at Herman X Root implesded, &c
The plaintiff is entitled to Judgment OF foreclosure
nor the of the MORTGAGE The release Of portion
G ss !. sos ies or 1s3 dshaTse Of any portion Of the
mortgage Equity will lot permit paper under
benefit Of e hubbard to be SCI up AID used to her rsusoe
ard mortgage and usual decree Of sale.
James NJ. Smith, it, est James Linden Owen DOnsan and
Tie conveyance by the defendapt, Linden to Owen
DUNCAN bearing April 90 1882 fraudulent and void
= eeo. biz Judgment ont Of said property deeodln
Seos must the receiver 10 he appointed sufficient OF
' Ss%ass to satisfy Se dsmo" and Costs
be had to appoint receiver unless the parties
Heavy Dwight, jr, ast. ANGEL S. john.
The decision Of the Supreme Court III the case be-
tween parties the motion Of the defendant to
Cancelled Of record the two judgments mentioned In the
.odS ngOy BY this Court IN RsI h PSnt Was SS ss
Pessiy dee.aeo ~ sia9n vs. t a. az and by S.s
chancellor NJ Conn "a Edw n, 10 The testimony OF
cause sufficient establish The
George Faushse and others Joseph Gilbert j, and
The plaintiffs, by the demand made Herewith and
ne provisions Of the acquired priority upon
H soe ss S sS . s Sest voluntary So
Keoss KEENAN, 325) The plaintiffs entitled 10 be first
ssd Gilbert 1uttle the amount of their
iudsme nts N The Of this suit.
The Coal Company The Delaware and Hud
son Csnal Company
The defendants were Incorporated IN 1929 for the
.pupose Of cutting Canal and making complete slack
the River and % A. soon
appoint Collectors of Tolls they might think
ssH caas ueS S
should think at any Ok 2, oSs, & en- psSe S wa
coal &c the Ssi ei1 the dsfend.n h.n. 10
eOlaeO9 q Raosd to connect herewith for The
al with the wyomns Coe Asocistion now repre-
. ,hs sG should fu1is6 The
e 3h G sS s Sass upon toll i' on tn. cG
transported rate FER t Of 224o pounds as blow , w..
'n ~. bi on that day we old since The Januay
STeeedne Be delivered ROndOo during the cHeg yes
sale. also 20 be s'ceained and from the
one The remainder should be the toll during such
upon coal transported on e canal o. o e a d
dae,n shall be agreed upon or eonempsed or should DC
hui YVES provided that IT, on the LIST day OF May IN any
yer quantity Of lump coal which the deieIS s sn
one Of the estimated sales for such year, the i fo such
should be calculated average price which the de-
pendants should actually sales Of Goals for that
Held That IL object intent OF the agreement 10
not he in the power Of the dsiensnt. charge
tolls auihonsed by their chatter but upon the coal
aud limited tolls were authorized by thus agree
mont ..-.,..
The defendants upon such coal ~tO charge and collect
tolls within the neanns and intent Of he ohaer AID Ia the
therein pointed out aud that such shi Is mol waved
Agreement by consent 70 accept IN lieu thereof
rio compen aiou from The plaintiffs the end Of each
Third: IL the true intent aud meaning OF the agreement
Of tolls for each year 10 be hxod BY the deiend
ante ON day of May IN each year and to be collected
.1tp.tn that afep Yt flr fol DUfur ha.is
the ii ST May ia each year the defend
ASCERTAIN the average price per tun Of sae msde or
TO be delivered at RoudOut dun that
OF January preceding and from such price
deduct the OF 80 81 and half the balance IL TO be the
toll per which the defendants authorized 10 charge and
collect for year the second contingency and
which the resulting In this suit IL the sales
of coal BY the defendants the ft day of May in year
since the LIST of January preceding should be less than the one
half OF the sales estmsted by them which they would make
during that year, then the syeage!e Of the saes actually
made contracted delivered Rond dur
hs hat the LIST OF January preceding 20 be sscer'
sum & 81 50 and one half The bssuce 70 be the toll per
which the defendants authorized charge and collect for
In The 6rst any deduction allowance or
discount made by the defendants during the sales
made contracted Tor poioton.te OF corresponding deduc
ton be made from such tolls and the daorenoe bewsen
which should have been collected TO be repaid TO the plant
In the second contingency IN inc event that st the close
sales 81 made by the defendants fTon the LIST sus 10
Of May greater than the sverase price OF ms NAoe
poe u the sales for the whole 10 70 be the basis OF We
for that and the difference between the amount ae
been collected Is TO be repaid to the rlsina' hSseve
the olose VI the shall be ss;eNbed that me sef
auus the lot OF May ss than the average pee o me
whole sales made by the defendants for that yes theh su
average price Of the sales Cor the whole year 70 20 tae
the toll for that and ihe difference between ts
wsh should have been collected and received and me AMOUNT
sus eoeeisd.to be paid By the P.n. 70 ts asi'Sa ~.
shs Of the parties accordance with tbs foregoing PFneses