New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-10-08
SUPERIOR COURr-sPEcrt Trss-ocr. before
Judge HOFFMAN
A COUSrYR CLAIM CAN RE- Sis

Court adjourned till Friday AZ ~ a. N.
SUPERIOR coURr-srscru rrsS-oer. z-Besor.
Judge HOFFMAN
fRhorIcE-wHES A coU>rER CLAIM CAN BIZ sUs-
Tanned.
The XenA Branch Of STATE OF Ohio jaime. Lee
and Ben sniB G. Lee
Motion 10 str e. uf counter clain IN an ans ser.
Tie Plaintiff curporsio cr,s,rd by the laws 81 Oeo se-
stf7ey t.ean- Of certain bus 81 eA A-e and a.
cep;ance. w0oh they .numsra-l by taking ADD driins
~ IN lie regular course Of business; thA 20 "a 80
collection II them they and Transmitted mem 70 ue
aren't, the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust company |" ~
collect and the proceeds the plaintiff without '~e %
indebted the def ndants for money ca ed upon u'ri
ous ,re.; snd transferred and delivered ;ae o' ana
.ueh T,urou- aud precedent naebne': that The defendant
took ths with knowledge that they were ne properly OF
the plaintiff and that the Trust Company bad No power tn
transfer the .Are.
Of Ohio then forth which the plsin'is'
hrarc incorporated which enacted iht notes or
bills d-counied BY such bank shoed BE- ssnab except 9I
collection aud redeem he circulating notes 81 ''h
bank pay liabilities that the de;endans had notice OF
such statute.
Tn comPanN; then state. dens aud refusal 70 deliver
unlawful ssd conversion ha. the value of the 90
,urties Is lie of S5l So &C. and demands Judgment 10
Tn. dene. the CATION. Of the complain and
that the several crets bills eKchsnsr enti)ari wrr IA
dor.ed blank D, aud trust Company by i~srd
Luoo~ It's Csshi.r and were delivered 70 the dernaants DC
any OF their being properly Of the PLAINTIFF or
not benz the property q The saii ONO Late 900 ms .o
ih synen, Of av u money loaned such Company on tie
faith credd Of such bills ndo.ed that the
the dra due The made upon them
further ths, the plaintiff have received the full amount II the
dsr,s % bills Ddorsers that the plaintiffs
the the stiou aud now indebted
the Who'll Of the drafts ana they therefore, claim the
night 10 retain them indor.ers OF such Company:
The then BY Of counter claim he making
Of several drafts BY the respective mskers With dates 3c
Scott Cashier order addressed 20 r iui
NV Cashier OF the Ohio Lite and Trust Compsay that the
plaintiffs in fact The pages Of them Ersp-cSey Scott
b,s their Cashier forth their dorse by scott s
.ucL s,her drv-ry the ONO Life aud Trust Company
and holders thereof the ndors
them by the Cashier Of such Company snd de.ry
III, defendants the due presentmen a. maturity a. the o.e OF
the Company the Cashier demand ana refusal protests
and notice 20 the plaintiff. ard ia scrpoa an.
+oS S. with ntres; as stated, and demand Judgment Tor
HorrmIs The question is thus presented The plain.
tits have brought action To damages for IN" nnsw
OF exchange which they AYR belonged them and wee lie
fy obtained and converted by the defendants Toe defend
s sl n po he say and e Of e own title state
the mode Of acquiring possession good faith and for value
the plaintiffs csn hey then that the psuiiSs
indo' upon the bills demand at maturity Of Inc drawers
reu.a and notice and they claim judgment against the
snt IT, r the amount Can such count'r claim BE- simited
under The Con- :
against plaintiff for OF action arising out Of the
tunsct set forth IN the complaint as the foundation Of the
,Sub. H.
which founded Is the delivery TO or possession by the de-
PENDANTS Of the bills II gu, stion
gave no DEFENDANTS the clam of The defendants H.
that ye.ted them full right 70 the bills and their syas aud
c,,sarly 10 all re.e. asan.t ell parties taem Thus the
antifs claim and the deieudilts' demand strictly 10
ring the transaction although other circumstance
s ndps that transaction will make the in favor Of
Again what meaning be given the broad language or
With ,b subject of thu action The subject OF ths
the and right 10 the bills The Of action
o the plaintiffs the Illegal withholding e" them by he defend
ants The the defendants is th. legality OF
their and ownership The cause VI each connected
with the same subject.
Tie legal character Of claim under the Code was
fully th. Of Gleason agt Moer q Duer Rep
ser II such If under the former system.
the plaintiff record The old set of comprssd any can
OF contract sealed unseaed aud whether the damages
hqudaed urhquidaed ncluded and also, any breaches
by the plaintiff promise contract on h part contained
demand formerly sasble By bill in chsneery aud Afr
NATIVE relief which In equity suits could be- had by cross o
d, the laws least IN Court. IL perhaps
does not by osra infer include precisely the present.
Certainly there Is nothing 10 exclude it, being
comprised within the legal scope and meaning 81 counter
claim. -
r. 1871 held independently othe Code that in An action
BY lessor Tor rent the es might ,eeSysr damaar sustained
C"u below the question was suggested wh.thef under the
Code might be done but the depended upon the law
In Drake AIT Cockro 40 Howard Rep SID, the sction
for rent lease and the defendant set up claim
damages resulting from the plaintiff. breaking open s
stable. Ier- Of premise. hired taxing away certain personal
property. This was held, be could not do mere tres
pa. as no nor. connected with the subject Of action
brought for than assault aud battery of the tenant BY the
MI Woodruff in delivering the opinion Of she Court
proportions fully co-erensye with the prncp Of the
decision in The Mayor &c. sst Maybe subsequently mad.
In Ashns ss Hearue 70 Abbott Rep isa Justice Em1ot,
thought that inter- claim could not be sustained upon the
folo- ina The plaintiff sued for damages M the CONVEX
The defendant alleged EXCHANGE Of rings,
ea to - Kept until tne other should De- returned and aeTed
tender Of The aud demand of the other and asked judgment
IL !, supposed thar the ground Of this ia that opposite
action for anno be the subject OF counter claim
ground Of each claim really otTact, although the firm OF
under old .yem would be- for then. when
the ton which each ia the same. the Code
broad enough 10 include counter n The exchange alleged
Of the rings was, in fact, mutua! asf' ement
In Pson eg Richards 92 Barbour Rep, lf3 the action
for IN dyertins the alter OF stream from the
ainh land by dehe. the land Of the defendant The
defendant claim for the violation OF b. be
plaintiff relative to the deepenns Of the channel Of tne stream
through their respective lands made four previously II
held by the Grncra FERN be inadnsble
apparent, that the alleged counter claim did not arise from
and connected with the subject
amer as 70 the land But the learned Judge doe,
sat- that in an action Of tort previous 70 the Code Of 1889 .-t
allowed they now allowed COULTER
und. the second Of section 80 Of the Cole
1852 Counter c,ns under the Code Of 1881 embrace bh
srtr. and recoupmen,' they ~ere understood prior 20
the Cod.
Auu that in pure action Of tort Def unders,ood
claim for tort Pernssab do not ye, obtain
r, perry chose action, by express. implied
WHEN r plaintiffs demand To that property 5r its
value And nave before underworld to show every essen
elem. h.r IN relation he raaton -abJect inst
rrqgd BY the Code is in his Ease fonnd 20 er''
think rhe claim properly within the Code
and The motion M BE- denied Order accordingly
Nj "m Stanley for plaintiffs ar seward for defendants
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-Ocr 7--Before Judge
HILTON
SUIT FOR PAINTING PORTRAIT or LADY.
Jeremiah Quincy ngt. Elias Howe-Pl4intlf ia a
PhotogrT bic artist IL broadway He for $3.50 for painting
the portrait Defendant, Wife He alleges defendant,
ordered a1d finished expressed hs satsactlon
Il. bur has refused tsA- and pay fjrit.
Defendant ep-. The Of the order for the picture
plaintiff agreed the price should exceed fO
he -Irs that he vres--d his satisfaction with H. but tast
the coLsry be puds,rd the ths rsr his refusal
itpl.t
Ipbc plsces sign. In conclusion he states
thai the picture worth oIe-veuth part Of the sID claim
cd for -