The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-21


at Ia months, two thousand and thirty three dol
at IS months, nineteen hundred and iy dollar.
| S7lOo $50 81
Total, twenty five thousand dollars SIS 900 %
II hereby further agreed that the said consignment
and advance shall be made the following terms and
Messrs Hitchcock Co shall be allowed commission
of len per cent on all saes up TO forty thousand dollars
The balance Of net proceeds of the SAID goods To be held
conhdentaly subject To order Of the said Appleton Oak
smith, party OF the first part; but portion Of said
ceeds to be drawn until the advances of Hitchcock Co.
shall have been paid from the sales and they have
balance In their hands.
For faithful performance Of all which the said par
ties stand each to the other firmly bound and obliged and
in witness whereof the, hereuno their hands
and seals in the city county and Stale Of New York. this
Signed, sealed and uc-) HITCHCOCK Co
hvered In presence APPLETON OAKS NTH.
Of EBEN BARrET.
And the plaintiff further tina, said goods tina
said agreement described part OF the eoods de-
scribed aforesaid and so shipped us aforesaid on board
the Amelia and Magnolia and brought back 10 the OF
New York Aforesaid and OF the value OF eighty thous
and dollars, Or Whereabouts
Alexander Hitchcock and William Burroughs, Jr, well
knew at the time they entered into tho laid agreement
that the said goods belonged 10 this plaintiff and did not
belong to the SAID Appleton Oaksnth or 10 the said Arthur
Leary.
And the plaintiff further saith that tho Hitchcock
o., in OF the said agreement their pro-
mssory notes 70 the said Appleton Oaksmih for the col
lecve amount Of twenty thousand dollars IN the man
provided for by tho said Agreement; that the said
notes have bern Tansferred by the SAID Appleton Oak
smith, par to Arthur IRary and In part TO one James
Devoe and held ny them.
Aod the plaintiff further alleges Information and
belief that The said notes all Transferred 10 the said
Arthur Leary and James Devoe with full kno Wedge
their part or the rights u the plaintiff and Of the facts
aforesaid merely a. sscurty for precedent debt without
consideration and thai the said fraudulent and
void against the said plaintiff
And the said plaintiff further alleges that The said Hitch
cock Co. on or about the thirty ars day OF January In
I'm yea tam tn "a
shicrs and lorenzo Oliver doing bsnss in tho city Of
New Yok, under the firm Of shers Oliver the Whole Of
the raid property received by them from the sad Oak
smith undet the sad Agreement without right SO TO
DO and In fraud and violation Of this plaintiffs rights tina,
the plaintiff ignorant OF the precise terms of the
ment ON which the goods Transferred hiers
Oliver, bu, the plaintiff Aeses tina, the s uansfer was
substantially pledge mortgage OF said goots and that
| ne sad shiers q Oliver fully apprized
Of the agreement madc o. Aforesaid between the said
Appleton OAksmh and the said Hitchcock To- that the
said Shers Oliver adyspced the said Hitchcock Co.
be prouissory Of the sad Shiers Oliver 10 the
OF twenty 1ve thousand dollars The sAd goods,
OF which said notes about ten thousand dollars
transferred BY said Hcbcdck 90 70 the defendants,
Edmund ootn and George G. aaydocf partners, dong long
and OF Coffin Hsydock, and the balance we're trans
ferred by the said Hitchcock Co 70 vnious parties I'M
this plaintiff that the said Hitchcock Co had no
RICH, the said property received from the sd
oaksnith In way that they cell knew The same and
that the said transfer Ia wholly fraudulent and void
agairs, this plaintiff right the said goods
ever passed 20 the said Shi-rs a Oliver in any way
, Ano tne ssa pAnun Iufner ,s n " =, ,n
OF shiers Oliver transferred by said ditch
cock Co. but be informed and believes that the same
precedent debts by said Hitchcock
4 Co that sad transfer IL Imperative and void as
aeant the rights Of this plaintiff and he that the
defendsnts, Hitchcock Co, make discovery OF the
persons to whom they have transferred said notes, and
that he amend this complain 20 a. TO make 50 N per
sons defendants hereto rs he shall be advised
And tins paindd further .ays that the said goods are
In the possession ~ the said Shicrs Oivcr in the
city Of New York. and that they wrongfuy de,as INC
same from the plain M ba, he has demanded the said
goods Of the sad Shiers Oliver, II that they have re
fused deliver up the same an still refuse 80 TO 10
And the tsd plaintiff further says that the said Coffin
Hay connected and interested with said Hitch
cock CO. In bushes, and well knew that the said Hitch
cock Co right dispose Of transfer said goods
TO said shiers 4 Oliver.
And the said plaintiff further says the rcst residue
ana remainder ~ the good. herenbeore de crbei wh n
brou9b, back the port & New York, and which
ffandueuy taken rs-e-s o. by the SAID Apple
ton os NTH and Arthur lesry stu remdn IN the poses
the rOl Of the sal Oakmh and Leary,
ebe both of them, and Of the value OF ten thoa
sand dol ars, or therea sOuts
Wherefore, tho plaintiff prays that the said Appleton
Oal ith Arthur Lesyy may be required W come TO
an account with this pantn and state infinitely aud IN
detail all the advances thst they have made on aocnnt OF
the said property part thereof, and The une man
and nature of said advances, snd that the i
pann may be decreed to be the owner thereof and thai
the said defendant Oaksmh and LA be decrecd 10 de-
liver up plaintiff the remainder of said goods winch
hrr,inbefr decrbed having been brought back N
the port New YORK and not Transferred 70 hitchcocs
% 9th damages for their niion and that The
made BY the said Appleton Osksmh Nth the sad
Hurboosk co. and the uzvfer by the ssid Hilsh
oock 20 ca the said Shiers Oliver OF sali gools be
each void and that the said Arthur Ieary aud
Jame- D~voe be se.ersy entotned from ndorsng, nego
tlstirs In any inicrmeddling with
~ ling dpoiDs Of any 81 the said paI~ reoevod oy
them respectively The said asrccneu, aai hn the
said be delivered up 10 be cancelled aid thAi me
eAd Ccffn Haydock De sevcraly enJoinet from in
dorrr p.gosng, transferring or in any way informed
ding selling dt-prng OF OF the notes Shiers
Oliver reoe vel b, them from Hitchcock 90, and ns,
the delivered up 10 be canceuef and thh
the said o.ssmtb and cary be sevS.ly enisnsd from
selling, eDc.mbefng, dkpo~ng Of, Interfering or inter
medanns wiis any Of the gv.is which formed pat q
the carvs Of Magnolia and Anen, and which
brought barh 70 the PIT Of New York exccps TOT he
safe keeping and thai The said 5hers sOnv@
BE- severaly enonet and restrained from sehng encnn
berns dtspr-pg Of interfering or ibtermeddins Win AL
or any the soois received by them from Nc sad so
ooeh In any for the safe keeping thereof
Ane the plaintiff demands Judgment against tbs sad
SHEER Oliver hat the tad gors be deh,ed op 70 u1e
plaintiff with damages for their detention or for such oher
and furthes reuef ~ ~ all be jus. - 60.
FRANCIS " DYkER5, Plaintiffs Attorney.
CIV ood fsp~av # New Fork, domingo dc Go'oou
ria the plain III terein being duly ssorn says that the
fereso Complaint Ia true of his own snoredsc except
a. the matters therein stated N he in'ormsunn and
| D. DE G0rODUMA
| sworn before me this oh DAY Of March, 1897 DAVIS
| Sr1xAs Commissioner Of Deeds.
A motion vas subsequently made before Judge Mitchell
for injunction the defendants from disposins
ofhe property the Judge granted the injunction
The defendants then moved before Judge cerke 70 have
the Injunction senied, which motion his honor denied 10
| The following oecisiop this morning.
ClfpKp This " Substantially action Of claim apt
delivery on rersona properly ina, IS seek 9ae 'e
demand the immediate restoration Of u, not necs
ssry that be should given written undertaking nth sure
ties In double value he Il sa fed W lot II for
tbe present In the trsseeson u the deeodauts Shers
Over but he requires that they should be Ia the
time rcssipei and eujoioed rom dsp.ns % ~, sa We
sinns remedy IL A. suitable nos w an seton OF nv. dee
cripcn ~ sny ether " 10 s brought s,,hn me 2isu
ec,on of the code Ths relief which he demands y me
.s,on of tbis property OF which he claims 10 be the