New-York daily tribune., 1858-11-11

s. X ~ I:s :: r., ,.:, c0- aud 0sa 70
b, Of tAis execution, was made on the sA Il
November, ls OF a. As ir;erss, Of rayLs oer.-p
Or Tie l.: oi june las Cromwell II, owssr Of tie prem
@ sssed the same % one smsh q, ;ee s,,, hom Nay
IN. oh Of August sas " Smith assigned s.ns to r. w
Alien R. ". Ako lsh Of NAY, issa s..sassa .
s % 1n On % o ss IS ana rhS .Se s.s,.I to -orss R.
On ;h 18th Of p-eeuioI 1881 Robinson wh the on-ess
Couw. the landlord, cOt Possession Of hs premises soi
occupied BY tenant At hs lime Of the sale on p.s, .
Taylor. interest IN tie pEsms aud er. ,hi. suit claiming
promises by virtue the ale and the r-n's aud rfots.
hA 'ai = 'es;ss'a one .-sin hSs' r. s ies s
enro, be- snsned the pAntia has made no osss % r~J
On the S Seye -, iss R. w Allen assigned he les.c 70
Tayor ssd or iAs ssh pccsmbsr 1851 Taylor s'is1sdSs
Tae o.msa; e Mysr ssaa. T! s.. rcsys !, :. ,sss@
nortssse the premise. cold
rA. sGd 'nd aoGse assigned BY Meyer 70 prsrr ca
ssAn, TayoT nses s'',p, d groeeedns In New Jsr.sS
were .oo snd sn BY brsr ne ole and he received
Shs.la, deed heIsie, .,s sa',5 q. ssg; & y 1850
D.yit IL am r,seS 70 Sc 9n san .oas the rr'sis
sssn.i Taylor he rad rsrca with al ierss, Jss.
ior Eoh that oa brocsh snd u cicsr % miad
question presented whether Taylor s,.nss Of
se ease e'n n,epo'e this objection 70 this jntsuen when
II fayl9r bad paid he clearly could have .,aa sn.,.f
the judsment i:sef fraud upoa TAYLOR wei. b.,f
Tn. contest here, IN Jackson sgi Csdsel II Cl~'
az 10 virtually between the original parties sas as bt@ecs
them al their tights and equities be inquired into.
The rcircd - jackson CALDWELL suprsl hods hs
tie same Of policy which secure iunocsa. pm
valid title 30 uas eAt when the iairment CREDITOR
he purchaser He does stand ia s,iitis
purchaser The plaintiff has paid nchiug
Of hi. and be ia not entitled 10 enforce ne dsn-ns
against Taylor he ought not % h. permitted 10 enl,se s
assust his grantee especially grantee who "A
possession he inside ysaaele and permanent Improve.
m.nts.
There is seriou. doubt in ,hi, c,e whether n s., ss
1dseut or rather the claim which Meyer tbe pala.if hal
ssust TAYLOR for interest not In Tact settled and d.
charsed l. positively by Tayor, and deosd ~
Meyer but the long delay Of nearly sN yosn on iae ft
OF Never IN issuing execution. or take any measure
10 enforce hs Judgment might raise strong Inference that hs
regarded sdnstcd II was valid udguieut huo~h 70
bm be 90 why did he not proceed . execute upon rAs
this casrho property When Taylor oeame sho
owner of the had nine O. and sp,n tho
proof have bcenyer valuable Never kuew otrsrs
and possession and Il he had Judgment which bs
this long and Unexplained delay.
Again, the Circumstance and time under whh the oieI 70
issue execution obtained leads strong f-enss that
doubts entertained the correctness Of that preeet-
irg Upon the before the Court should nos have s-
tboTzed the execution 70 b. issued Conessedy notpewss
th due the plaintiff that Judgn ut, aud I've did not po-
then the II Draper the owner o the
bond deb, aud the mortssec.
Ater reflection this aud ac>renl e>smna.
tion the testimony in the unable to discover Asy
principle Of law equity which would warrant me- IN giving
judgment for the plaintiff.
The complaint therefore b. dismissed with costs.