New-York daily tribune., 1858-12-27

cor a.
Th- original q, a. ., .er.. III. a, the deeds ard p,per''
n. oeed TO ru.r Dean led to ths oi n.S Oonp,
th- trss.P eonu>; and The s,.isanent '',rs 80
tLs au cus:ocy Art c-utru ~ 81 ma
b. a. 'uf,-lrd 10 ihe ~ these Papc's,
s b. be- h. p...sior or cust dv of inr tilh
nv sh.rm.n D.,n uresr sbh the Hoffman CON
ysry the Isht and ha'e .Isre'ea .ni ss 80,
ii.ht 10 r.por. ooas and BY virtue OF me Hs1'
i,oo certified copy Of the deed ih- Hof nan
cfar,Sy aken from the land reoord Of Ae.hAny Coany'
M.rJ and si the ee.d d.'-e AZ = -, s- ssv
ara ~., record,e 2 1888 the request oil Ae
1tr az o.her Allegations. complaint eh.rns sher,
80 ,s,ioai .,.P' .i.' .2d C.. aI oa si esoa1t
ior 10. me which would not undertake 70 'ay soid a'se
any D. arlug tie c,u.e % action ssHns' ,nT hol
tsny the lands il t State and al ,he Pc 'e' ie
. rom ,se deed to the Hoansa Company and the
that confederation Of t6s; deed va me .
r sf,tA Al Dean II coriihcsies for Arse nam Del ~
the H. aau Company .'ok sad the compliant a-fs
1b- 60 for rporsry Injunction RESTRAINING sh-I
81 De. the Hoffman ComPsIy a1d esfe Of "a. M rom
taiins .Iy The rom on Carrying aw'y '.lae % .a
CT interfering with tn, said ,no' or Eth the cor,
or other rroduct h.r-c md from assigning o. pue VIZ Ie
,,,.ro,.on contra OF rish,, under ana from ia
,uis any acton poc-edag any Court Tor tar
said rshts 4arl
A. fnsl ~ i,f the cnuy th, the transportation con-
w., 80 All or II auy nights uud-r 70 ne
Hoffman Company by sherman Dean be a 1issd
.rd V iecred De deye-o up 20 De snssed .nd
,ha, toe sale and Dean BY plaintiff .ad ,he
deed by sh,ru.n Dean 10 he Hf nsa ComPang b.
be irsUcueut ane hat rrcsn vance tn.Ieo " 20.
nan Compsuy dcreed and that the sad en o
hem b eers.e to aeeoll, Io ne eoa ny s.e m
c.ivse aud pay well as o-er rents snd p'ons o
the n, mi.e. to the plaintiff. 50
Tb@ a. coms srt ao asks that Sherman Dean and the
that Pst b. tecre-t . asslfn And de-
yer pst al the shares of stock 10 toe HOFFMAN CON
psny witch they hsve re ei'eo no.i OF -ntse 70 40
and The said sock o. COMPANY whoa ary nav
acquired A. the consideration III whole OF IL part ' Tie ''
Now whs, the cause Of action in this comp.1t against the
Nh.us nd wis
Court The put tin the relief asked Tor as against ha
Tie complaint nplie. wrong breach OF diy-done or
upPoseo BY the Hsh an Company to the injury OF he smith,
TIE G, n. ngL TO TIA; remedy. and that
rat accrued the 4 siou when and wher;
t- wcs or breach o duty suffered For -
clau a. exercise right. Ownership profit under deco
instrument fsuonlenty procured against tn- tue owner y
swione FOR Which remsd s9d the grantee Of
such cslusut with tlo~ledge OF TIE fraud Who claims and
tie lie of ownership aud pro,. as,ns the true
pro.rv eli bis CLAIMS be BG, such wrong
i con rr ted and such breach duy suffered when and where
the claim H1ouafuy made and tl rgh' oil o"nef'hP are
/ wr,ngfuly rci,cd again 81 he zeal owner.
H. bis case sppsaIs that the deed - the Hod man Com
paay Mary sckGow sdsed and recorded
the iard is there aud al ams Of Ownership and s;ss
ownership prof; By the Hoffman ,e'm Company under
OF the tins ,or.non stated in the compliant
al been made snd exercised in Maryland the Hof
iIk hat the plaintiff cause tn oa
Conlsny did and must have uisen In that State
Uple. the Of the Hoh Company siuddent ami void
sud udicay cetscted be plaintiff entitled 20
from the hoffman Company o the rent'sad profit.
proceeds of the sud The t.ken claim = dependent
the ngt 70 have the deed cancelled and 20 econsy
Unless the Of the Hoffman Company
In tins State cannot be made parry % the seton by Sec ~
OF the Code and having property this State cannot be
service under Sec l3i under the act Of
1885 aud unless the Hoffman Co party how the Court
the reitf asked sgaius that recOnvey the and Sc
Sh-rmN aDt Posty personally within the jurisdiction ~
the Court and they either of them have the possession Of
pspes asked be cancelled th Court bs probably
10 compel them - deliver the papers 10 b. cancelled but
that effect decree
tL,r pyt oth. relief asked against the Hoffman Co would
affect H. ur's party to the anon rae seton q 70 tns hon
Co proceeds against toe HOLMAN Co for real estate
IN Mary sno for done and sufere 10 Maryland,
III relation the under the transportation contract
The main relief Saieh the panth does ask for in this
comp st but which the plaintiff requires TO wit resor ion OF
the be had ia the COu
throu gh the authorities Of Mary ,nd, and well BE- doubted
whether Of the relief asked in the complaint against the
Hohnsn CO. is not incident 10, be separated from
action for such posses,iou
sequ proceedings in this action should be- aside the
Hcam.n Co The plaintiff have leave nd the summons
complaint and proceed against the other defendants within
the jurlsdC tou Of this Court the n-n'a %
reasonable grounds Tor doubt on THIS question oil
jurisdiction should deny the motion and leave the II fnan
the question by this motion, well az by demurrer
cited esern Bank sg City Bank OF Columbus, How
Pr R. 2S8.