New-York daily tribune., 1857-04-21

to Tie corcol Of speed Of :e.ei being Ae
hc time aid ao the 'aoristo check he .ane that
the motion of thc Fgle coud Ne readily over ONE
$ pA Tie tide Hood come four nil
William in hc Bay. The Eagle had the force Of The
tide TO overcome beside the non from hef enghe ana ne
Syph ;he cOperaon Of tile oroelo ard IN checking heI a
| the instau, ,,.- =,
whether pr d,roo would lot dictate regard
crowded a. that York, with every 'Ice Of water
vessels sho ID not anchor in 50 unusual and dcne fog
or or M o. f j , ~ s i4t hr aI, triAns con.insencis
when compared with chance. of running aszi.t
anchor, against which the compass no secu-
riy II ~" Bag" had been a. ioF IL l' as aG eHco an.
tered the syp that condition should not have hesated
to have charged the att Win al the .ef fences oi tue d.
NOR than the o.her ard from the aud custom which
boats In tik v,atnr an not disposed az p-cse, to hold
both ia It, to ustfy appotionnent Of the
the Court viii o feel bound, in Of disaster, disc
na4 with very great nc"ty as to the dcsrte OF fault i'm
TO encounter hazards the navigation The syph in
not having board licensed pilot and under
that act oxcpt- used fenyboats The Syph
| think, comes fairly within this exception.
THE ASTOR WILL CASE.
James No,ibeck and Cecilia No,he his wife ast WIN B
A.or, Daniel Lord, Wellington Irving James Ga,a,in,
deceased, and trustees under his WILL William b. A'r'
Roc@rVE1r, % ~ The late Mr. A-tor, it appears,
time before bic death executed 70 MS srenddaasher
M. Bore deed 9r the & ho'e vs,, on BSaay n e gn a %
,he lot connectrd with H. extending through street
Whether ,is instrument under detailed in
the evidence ever took effect and what j. its operation
pon the deye Of the and the adjoining promises 70 Mr.
r. r. Nc Ma AGO. A .sr sfe 'ii s two pp to Se .oed Dds
take by delivery, wills by deatb Deeds 40 SUCH
without any accompanying words; wills require witness.
and declaration Of the testaor at tine tme showns m
ledge Of the character Of The Instrument ne mt 'st IA
controversy executed in the pesence OF single ~itne
with declaration Of it's nature contents had al the
forms Of deed and none OF the forms Of s"Y 1G
therefore, operate as testameniay di-positon ever I'm III
b Sod a. IeG OK sood for nothing; in oh.T xord tbee
must been delivery either in fact IN law the
ing %ne "a ana a @ tSay @ @ ey SG%pd
house and lot for that III Conceded remained in the actual
conyeysnce? DciYcry whee s direct the party
named IN the instrument being much not stogether
AI uq PREVIOUSLY TO the date Of this deed had made his
will giving the hoose in qution and the three ohI adjoining
sisters named being grandchildren by hi daughter
Mrs Langdon for their respective lives with cnsndrs Oyer
70 their issue If any, aud if none 70 the surviving sers-"b
certain powers also Hser certain prescribed e'tIcton' 81
from he judicial history d The State that trusts,
power conditions limit on and other dispositions how
intended in all things to be m'de c9niorm6s to a"
by the Courts frequently deemed invalid" This Is
HIM IN he codci mad in January 1888 And he may be
supposed therefore very naturally 70 have desired that so aF
Withdrawn the vortex Of post morteD litigation. At si
events whaeyeIwere hf motives 1t certain that on The ht
of Lie ek. 70 I'll up printed bnk geed oI ths mouse .Id
10 presence o the clerk who became attest
lug witness sia Hsudes u 70 his -Qni " 4nm A't9 WIN
X,,cI1 death; oI the third day month
proved by the attcstug witness ana the PROOF cthec ny
by Mr.. William Asor to the RegsteT Once ana tAtie re-
corded the 18Th Of Alqyi snd sitgI the Ie'1s II T1s
fathers death and then handed to Mrs MI Boree d her
property. From this 'taeinst wod eem quit clear ia9t
20 far as the and otsn question concerned Mr
Asto iuendedsnd that his Snderstood him a. Intending
to substitute the decd for the w to convey the prop y
absolutely and presen although for an estate OF inrrs; 70
commence in tutuo The question iheh Is can ud ee
the e,ar upo The hspp.uiig Of al cvu which
pass and which cannot in the nature OF things be
poneG than the continuance Of existing desgnAted
e Since the adoption Of the RI kyisea sia'ss Wh.te,I
NAV be- cr ated 10 commence day provided is
ton do suspend the absolute power of alienation for longer
n ado cnypyance 70 his granddaughter Of tn, house be L.
In 80 have and hold forever from the day Of his death"
Ss wSSG SSEyGysbS GyyS@ been valid and ctDa No
Of ssion would have been nece. aIy The de-
would perfected the right n, datcly although ne
actual enjoyment Of the subject Of the gt postponed I'll
pears be attained IN lawful manner A. general prcp
,ion dspu,ed that deed although Prportins on s
face to be int nGed to give immediate P9i.tsto n may Dc M
vercd TO third party an escrow ana tRat II mn o'u'o
may % Nc, thS hsppnns ps y some future event Il is neccs
.ary that The tenn escrow should be used lhs ne inten
tio may be indicated in any other aanncT to Wen-
dell So Even NE ras dvs2 ON 's0Id se n. " sG gy r"a G y
be rebu,,ed by proof QS Johuson's Reports 54iE it
extent i'll this case by the testimony OF Nm D.
him TO have this deed recorded, replied, He Wa not sur
wheherle did no-that it would have been done at a
e,tnts of the details the business OF the ONCE
Nj Asto nigh, have dire ted the recording merely to pre-
the evidence of the deed without intending IN mmed
ate absolute delivery Indeed me esumSly j. Pon., go
twice three times repeated that the deed was handd 10 he
Borc his father. death" 1t not Therefore 20 be
delivered 10 her before but il 10 be delivered 10 her all
meiaIy dpoo ,he at was the donor.
lifetime without the donees consent Ii precisely similar
20 the case Of oedc against Pierce T. Hill 6j where the
party handed the deed the Craftsman keep OI the grantee
delivered absolutely the grau;ors death unless
i iah Al
Tie csse Of Rugges against Lawson 3 j. Il 235 still
There father made deed in favor OF two of his
sf,aG his desth should he die Without making VIII The
sn,o having died intrae and the deed having therupon
been delivered wss held BY the Court valid and eaec;
anal Conveyance notwithstanding its able character Ia the
alone This case. although referred 70 aud comrleud by
the Court in ~ Wendell - was not ovcrrued IL isopen
no doubt to grave criticism How an instrument eHsel;ed 10
take effect The grautoTs d, ath and remaining subject till
then to hi absolute power Of revocation by will car he dn-
perceive. For the pesert purpose however 1t is suf
that this Is not such MI William H. AsoT
held the deed III question subject 70 no ach power Inc de-
livery him absolute and incvocSble subject 10
MI n the ,Tsntor. yolton Tor All me- .oo~r
later die whether they will OF no That MI William
Htey putting the deed record, al sct which after ch
laps, Of tpc and il the absence Of any rceton To- the
contrary also iaIy presume that bls atAer directed
Mr Aor vii be Tecoleced lived nearly year after the
TRANSACTION and constant intercourse with his Ii
he did expressly direct the riding may fairy infer
tha' he s.'w o. and ad Lt ai,ap8Ioye H. In, insnmsn,
too sir IT. and Icording was kept not among MI
for bis father IL other business this matter constituted
bace eepo;sy not for his father BIZ for his fathers
gHnddaushi,r Assuming, then that the deed ~Ss III; ndrd
to b. and that !, wa, !. s- sna fai valid 9Pers'iye
& S, tvfIsy TO MIS- b. S5.y b.y upon I pc. ns 4Sy's OF
ua eqsity of the obvious enough also the intention
Of donor for addition 70 the inference almost necessarily
resulting from the a. fse she deed seeusly BY Mr Aor
OWE deSton at the End of the description BY bounds
and dncnous contains these very significant expressions
S he s caI pssi % of Eps pcs,st. Isio p T
nal nd tudsV did,