New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-08-13
COURT OF COMMON PLRAS-GESERAL TEss.-Before
Judges DAILY, BRADY. and HILTON.
M Z I'M Vt NIVN|
Fowler AIT. Genet.

Fowler agt Genet.
BEADr For the purpose OF d1sposlng Of t.ls
p1 'usy Of the ppa over Which ker husband had
no oontrd and Which she could dispose te~e
empn S se ad ~s hers The result might Be sdSere to
this assumption but j. not nee.s'y q; will D. 'ao~9 Hes h
d. d. Boet proceed 10 the State Of Virginia, AID 70 take
etsse Of ard mar certain properly and 70 acecu
collected him from rents otlerwise bos,t t9eed
:s as sSe s::s % e s. s de 6. go FL
GeIet the bond in suit security for the performance OF ms
aeene with Bos and for the repay 20 Bset Of
SIS which agreed advance TO enable Fowler to
to Virginia after the exc uon o. ths asreemen ad me
plaintiff rssned here with The bood IN her possession Aot
her and said would give bond he would give her the
75 refused give The money unless she gave mp the bond
a7 1t so appear. from testimony of the plaintiff that
she said the trial that she never knew Of any agreement wh
her husband and Informed OF until after the defen1
The pond INTO their possession She admitted however
that the made by her husband before mentioned wa;
hi Ge She dos no, ssie PGs h nv s sgen ws, ,nt
Gepes Office g. c. Genet wes's that the agree.
uet her and L. Genet ssesrs that he Ihns
was read 10 her Ii be assumed this evidence that Mrs
Fowler knew Of the character Of the agreement made by eef
husband il rence the bond and deposited win the de-
under BY virtue Of that agreement Such beug the
fact deposit Of the appo alton appointment OF TO her
.h rs e s10 nci TecoVe without csms With
which her husband made least paying the advanced
(Fall at. Deseyer; IL How Pr. r, III
The July charged "ha hey found the bond 70 be the
a Of the a YET they oune '9 s g bos 'I 1
fr the There being conflict on the question ~
a tending to prove that the verdict must BE- regarded
clearly agabs re evidence or wholly ~ "a, ,
i hss, Sse ss s@ G iii BE- ordered corbe sat Brown
Big S. Shons act The Insurance Company q North Apeh
CO. Wah C. c. Rep, l29; Hutchinson agt CoIemin' na'
a msP s@ s''se a. Mqmord smith Caine. r.
$50 Needle. ag Howard T. y Smith 81 peehsT Az =.
et be warrsned BY the proofs or it VIII be set ASIDE
S@i ss m G,s AZ: g. sm S e. Smith 5 as The
Judgment Of the Cour below should be reversed
Daily f. j. eOncuTTed g., cors,
HmToS, 1.-The plaintiff sned to recover the value
Of certain railroad bond deposited BY her WIZ th defendants
The evidence the part Of the PiniH was IN saoa e INA
to individually in lifetime Ct her husband and TIE deP
1t made secory for me advance o. me M -
the demand $50 rendered, sum more than sufficient to coz
The vapcs defer wss briefly that the bond deposited
a. security for performance by the hu.bend tue antn OF
certain ssreemer made by him with one be'.et aud an sd
vance Of AIS tn. not performed by the
husband he ded indebted to Bost under It, d that the
defendants riebuly held the bond for Bo.,e,' oeneh,.
signed y toe husband and dated July 1897 The date Of me
agIeerei fer b. in loan according TO our agreement ana
the other dated July - by the plaintiff and in these word
Received the written asresen as provided therein iae
sum Of as New York. July ~ 1857 psaoips the money
paid David Fowler, per his receipt annexed hereto
HARRIET 2 @s' FOWLER
In presence If T.. J. Genet"
Tie sgret mcI itself contained the following clause;
Aud aio Fowler agrees further TO depo. n the hsSd o.
ard T. J. Genet, sellers al law certain bond OF - 81
the Toledo and Illinois R,Ioad Company security Tor ts
performance Of this BY him, aud so security f
said Fowler ao Bosse OF eran ad' ance
IS which sad ss", asroes q make
70 said Roaer eniole bin 10 enter on the iheat hereof
appeared defense fILer that ~ the t1e OF TIE deposit
H. panta husband lad left for Virginia the agree
m4u and Lad received rar Of the sdysnce named, acc f
some hys ad been eudeayoug 20 induce thu psnad 70
dpos The boud From Boets test aony, app-aI inS soe
do this But ste wanted te.na . JON hef nus
4 a EHa.af EraNIg
IL she wanted the les. Of the money zee must
give Up the bouahe bond il seems being cAined by the nus
bard belong hnbat when be len he could 10; s De-
IL plaintiff possession Claimed Is Lf own prop
erty and she would rot give II up
And although the roIy the par OF tn defend n was
that the receipt. The agreement was sad over u
her vet plaintiff qualified this BY tJls t1' ere "ss
rtyc informed -eeent anil eer they got t1e bold
into their pnssrtsi1u'
Reside t neither Of he wii1e.ses o. the Defendant dpled
thst sae received but ~ Aod tr raj
road while the receipt taken N CONNECTION VIVA tht one
given ~ the husband showed sat If tue written te
received by her Wa -
Tbe.e taken in connection with toe r>culAr
phr,,sy receipt the efforts made 20 iadue th pam
q, 4, si M. ud nsr snoonsdicted statement tst s1e
the until atr tne oi-1.nis
bad ct bono into their pscsson were eied u De con-
sded BY the jury in determining the true us"ie OF inc th'
sc,iou between The psrtea
And although think the defendants hsvcg received "a
bond from psnf deposit her property We're e'tpped
tm denying Der snnuitant Yet the Jls;ce cposd OF ~
bond belonged the husband they ind io' the defend
ants and addition that II they found she drp)st-t as .e
cr,y for husband they must ind or the cesIdan.-
rncs which certainly the deieldsnt- 10 ground oi com
@ the, found otherSis and from their veriic. brg
evidence hiak flc. OF testimony, vita ''Ton:
r.suu Fg!ons in favor Of The plsiniih s ease
Fox ihess the Judgment should not Be cisi-T1