The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-02-19
THE OTHER SIDE.
Argument of Hon. Is. X. Curtis, on Motion
for Intunctions, january 8, 1859.


UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
Before Hon. Judge Ingersoll.
Horace II. Day and others u.s. Cary, Hoacard and
SANGER. The Same Us. Peter Murray. The
Same Us. Ed,cin 4. Brooks.
May it please your Honor believe 1t must be
within your Honors judicial experience that par
ties in their eagerness to appear to stand right be-
fore the Court not infrequently exhibit great deal
of evidence which, when it comes to undergo
judicial examination, is found to have very little,
If any, bearing upon the true merits of the case.
And it seems to me, that this case presents an
eminent instance of this habit. The case turns
upon the construction Of certain deeds, and upon
their construction and legal effect, exclu-
sively. And yet there is in the case what may
call mass of eI pdre ahdavts, concerning matters
wholly extraneous to those deeds, numbering be-
lieve, when taken all together, something upwards
of one hundred and upon this mass of ca pdrte
afdavits there has been piled up the bills and an.
swers, and proofs, and accountings and dicta, and
opinions of past litigation between some of these
parties and some other persons. The learned
counsel for the defendants have set themselves
down, very gallantly, before this heap, and have
raked it and extracted out of 1t bit here and
a bit there; here an act and there declaration,
something that has been done, or said or thought,
or intended, during period OF twelve years. by
somebody or other, in some way or other connected
with this subject matter, or something that some
body other has omitted to do, or say or think OF;
and out of these they have constructed, with very
little aid it seems to me, Of the deeds themselves
the work they present for the examination of your
Honor.
Now if this were matter to be submitted to
Jury, to be decided by them upon some general,
vague but forcible impression made upon their
minds, | should look with great respect npon the
skilful effort which has been made by the learned
counsel on the other side, and to the best Of my
humble ability should probably proceed, as well
rs ] could, to initiate their example. Bat, mas
much as according to my perceptions of what this
case requires, it can never undergo judicial nves-
ton by your Honor according to this method; and,
inasmuch my humble duty here consists in en-
deavoring to aid the Court, to examine the case
cording to some true method, am forced to pur-
sue very different course.
Certainly there is no rule Of law which is better
settled important for the security of titles,
than that which requires that deeds shall speak for
themselves; that they alone to be listened TO,
I'm order to ascertain what the parties meant in
transactions reduced to and evidenced by sealed
Instruments; that If their language can be under
stood it is to be read and received in its natural
sense. When difficulties arise in interpreting their
language, those difficulties are to be solved
by the application of those rules of interpre.
tation which the long and varied experience OF
Judges has settled as sale and convenient; and II
after the application of these rules doubts should
still remain then, with great caution, and under
many restrictions, the Court may recur to certain
class of extraneous facts, not for the purpose Oh
saying something which the deed has not said, but
to to aid the Court to ascertain what the deed really
means. These are familiar rules, and shall endea
vor so far as can to present this case to the Court
In accordance with them.
the earliest in point of time, and, in some aspects
of this case, the most important, though in
others IL y unmp0r,ant. it ~ the deed OF
the 18th of October, 1876, in which Charles Good
year is the grantor and Horace H. Day the grantee.
Now, think II most important in considering this
deed--and before adverting to its language-to
ASK your Honor TO apprehend what is the pre-
cise point IN controversy between the learned
counsel and ourselves on the Interpretation of
this deed. That point in controversy respects
the true meaning and legal effect of the
worcs which describe the subject matter of the
grant, VIZ, the exclusive right license and privi-
iege TO make, use and vend shirred or corrugated
goods" Tae question Is upon the true meaning
and legal eject OF those words, as they stand in
fkis instrument. The learned counsel for the de-
PENDANTS maintain that these words in this instru-
ment, are to be read as II the grantor had said my
said shrrcd or corrugated goods.r That is, that
this II grant of one particular species or kind OF
shirred or corrugated goods, identified and de-
scrbed by silent but etiectual reference TO some.
thing which precedes them in the deed BY a 81.
lent but sufficient referencc-suc Is the argument,
10 those terms which precede the granting part of