New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-12-19

.hie tie ~f- ~to bops
psres srs.d bsns ~ pAruG. ndo-'ed by Aepr'oo 70
sOte them ~,e ana ~ oo,es is~fo a. iL'J " -
49, ten, non tame TO tiu..
Tie suth0dty gwen BY p.LItifs 20 X. " o. 4 20 ""
sFniat, Ard 10 set nth IN ne comp aitt.
s,.nes q aid securities n ,.r..s dsfdAc;' slds.
~ and smother th- nneent ooo'Isis .'de' 10
prs. eeeadAs; stating Of esoh q toe deico1.a.
=. ,ss ss o. Ia aS Co. va. yod
sd then prooesds for fns relief Nrsi he deendso
81 iraneton rsssnins the dp0 Or transfer 81 thsa
>.yirs ,se pstd'ney oftais snit
To nh, complain defendant Aok.fm de11rs sn0-u
y 90 ,A see,sa OF ~, M o. .'@e' aita. '' 30.
.l9ad es 'ued ,on. ~ a. AID re qoe'on P'r'-n-i ~
le sdsrA lying The four da,.on ~ this matter,
Ge eefncsHi' haVe iness somewhat IN common a. least
hey -ora ...m % hs'e commcn interest ~ ne e'H,.. D.
pSd. the tstioIy q the AFTER TO dispose OF the 'cue' AZ
may s,d even by hat the SCENTS received
hfereht sanoJ ITO Ne different se. on 20 that
pt xbh r,t, 70 the other. hence that the interest 10
% them th respect authority
ms doubt be trne va. considerable extent
.p h. theory Of the gf ~ ,o. .., OF ia bs ,,c p
tes different from those gwen 20 others -, .,.,.
atie tiroush tbs a. Of s1boy agent,
.sd similar II not jont inere. IN there
ey properly united In one aunt For 40 e there H
soDe com between the q soD intimate that
NV nav BE- BE- united they prop
suly oned II al the defendants uni,ed Ia
..h the several causes Of ton that would scd reason
Nth winch justly the uuoD Of them into suit Dat the
sonmupity extend - all the defendants
that interest Of them oil mast extend s the Of s;ton
fr certain and very psin that suit against FIVE defend
sGts would not ordi1sny h. proper . -te Of 70.
embraced IN pleading did ncude s
!. Sa , "S,S g .S6 Is ai BSefy %,e
res and as 70 which no rses soasnt ssaust him b on
lei eftb Code Ia the last olsuse Of H. requires that where
eSs Of seton united suit they must affect
I'D the pste' TO the ,ct'on."
How IL Alderman, the denurran interested in the claim
spst Ausy for insaDoe The Transactions Of the several
received the securities Jointly perhaps in
snSsnee there two Composed hn and Aekerm.ns i. not
Of these ose Th agents Of plaintiff h,d Their securities
,p TO purchasers What interest mas one Of these pur haers
h the Transaction with another the Ju1smeut thai shall be
pronounced uphold inVadsug the claim OF that other
IL neither ADDS 10 dmnishes his rights Affects them in
.n& manner ,s:, psIceESs Nv d, 49,.
II their title were the ssmef some one act or transaction
ks rround Tor Saying that they such community Of
Interest a. 20 MAKE interested in the case of the other
60, BE- very apparent IT, on the contrary their claims
esed and al the parties bad or sa from the statement Of
might inteIest i.vSdane the writing held BY the
s.r III. necessity for joining them az defendants would be
Tls.,s. extent the in the great New Haven
s.se limit BY Law to the which
steel mi. under some sspect be Interested in defeating or
psppDs the claim Of another 50 tina, by excluding that he
tAe There med TO be and necessity
T., uniting al a defendants there g. a.. s.o.,
s.s and the fact that they all received the securities from the
them distinct and independent does not to TO al
Sd good reason for uniting them al In ,1t ssnit each
securities for sale. be borrowed money from A.
Oh. had notice .hs the agent had no authority pledge II he
isvsdstes the security to he passed security for
pItie. TO justif, pesde in making jointly with
g.. he s.s ;ay that xh the
jnins Of the other defendants In the sn rested to the
security Of the defendant sone there ro ui lent
tsr joining them Is they are jonei
Ney this .u were Oroush 70 recover the ,seuIte. from
1s ether defendants 10 in And Il sui,
ss@ Mr. Alderman alone what eaimed sssnsl them this
SsfsndsDts' Hsv. they any interest in Mr. Alderman. o4
.ss.. and distinct .ssn each .ndsnt N.i.s.T sS. any
s ste,s in thai .ssnst the other and the cause. Of action
seiy the party holds the security which II relates
should BE- and 's q. & sy efs any
the party senune and be Snot IN legal mannsr accord
frSdsris any Of the other dei.nd.n,s Interested
tAs controversy between him and the plaintiffs
house enormously and illegally conveyed BY the agents aud
ts suit brought to Iesnd the oonyeyances and recover
sseph and Bowns Green and the others in
SnSen SfcS the AGENT .d al Of them was this case con-
tsHed in single instrument and was the same 10 all
sst:nd.ni. we're Improperly united in one suit oands
sS h. se ss D.r sSn b. holds The Contract
thus sepaIsey made with each the contract sought to be
a. to and sssn,t the single with whom
particular matter IL litigation as to each is peculiar 70
vim Io.' q JOINT interest . nsm all ssaA.Ihoa aF sFSsn
seem 10 me conclusive on the principle ofthis ease.
Judgement must for defendants with liberty TO plaintiff to
man Co.. who 4, trustees may properly be united
against each es'' que rus at the option of the plaintiff q
Before Judge ROOSEVELT.
THE JOSEPH WAIVER CASE.
Hsrrick The Mayor Controller, &C. Oliver H. and
In this well known injunction had been OBJ
fned restraining the Mayor and Controller from paying the de-
fendsnts Jones for raising the ship Joseph WALKER Last term
motion Of the defendant Oliver H. Jones' Justice Peabody
mssed complaint in consequence OF the defsa OF the
plaintiff and rendered Judgment sssnst the city O5 the sum
due . o P ies was BY ms With Mr.
Jones counsel noticed the for this term before Justice
s ed to the Tas
had overlooked quite accidentally owing the sccumn
Jadfs ordered default b. opened and that the COPs
rien be we'd TO come In and defend.
GrsEkIL TEkn-BefOte Judges MITCHELL CLEsEE and
PEABODY.
Williams, Stevens, &c. agt The Estate of Jas. w.
os.ss<snOrder 70 be modified that the matters in
tseversy be passed upon by referee -
Roberts sgt. The Albany and West S.ockbndgs
lsilfosd Company Judsment affirmed with costs.
CsssauB, &c. sgt Mali, &C., and three other cases.
Order affirmed with costa
The People agt. Psige-Order of Recorder affirmed.
jackson sgt. The Psople.-Judgment reversed and
ADMITTED TO THE BAR
The following is the report of the Examiners ep-
f. &c a 70 si 9 ~ q: sspt%s co
We the undermined appointed Examiners Of Applicants tOt
yrsns Court DO respectfully report ina; they have performed
he duty assigned them and report the following persons
pey qualified TO practice attorneys and counseor Of the
%S. Aps% j. NJ BOOrrn.r J.. C Carlisle. COrn.lu. R.
con Stephen whitehOms Francis G. Barlow John Bald
RsS.I. Oven George stsnbrennsi R. Ii. Charming Sd
yard ss :; = CuHe{ na.Rs VAN wrNxLr
~ FHSS' s ThJEJ59%IAsDSE, Examiners.
The Court then took up the case OF Dinsmore IL
Wood ag- Croos Aqueduct Board which up