New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-06-25

p oosri cAnao' sp w.,cb doe. regard the
= ,be society ofssniSs'% n !" oonuNo' III ~ -
Of 3, e.: .,.Gs from The application that sale 4. .oa,; fi
Ssipt 80 no az, he Application AID ~ order
ss. he pew hoiT' 'ach have no mere: n s
ssh CD arch s:,Dcs bat ths. ~. night cease ~
= S'see dssroye or beeOmss peinaA emily anh' of
ssss s 3 q tS~ Code confer. Jurisdiction on he COMFY
s, app IesIe - ss enc ,.ea n he Ca.n,eef BY
is =, zs. en-. 20 aIset toe spphosaon y '"'
b. II the proceeds Of sale Of real e''a'e'
saaT OF COMMON PLEAs-stscIAL TfRsh-'"he "
sssoIs } p rsi DsI .ad Edward z BA1e;:
This was demurrer to compIsn'. &, nj. c,,no..iu,.
s.I Tss p.a IT, :n sit T. :ss dsfndaa Pios nd
~, ~ $40 and .er the osn ;9s d Sm .Se ~ area
ss D.. o r The Ian Barrett having fsed 70 pay ne
sbs pi.iniis action upon as AID ),
ess,ss % him IN the Of sto5 he amount Of :he
49,, The .f.ndsnts d-nu and tnhk Iae demurrer
W.. settled that The recovery o. judgment ssans: one
sr idnt 4. b,or. though Do,hios h obisasd upon II s
fu,are son s aS s sa "a osn. 30
ar HosY. Inn and Welsh 49t j. cauoo. be gaintansd
s.nst number less haa Tho wns 10, If ne oar,ie
win .bs,s he s.t3n A,on, W yS s,S a
Az u canp e maintsnsd sgans, all for jadsme, having
-. prvloosy recovered assD', be csnno as long
s.s; b. 1s; Con-. Sn'Ise' Ley .s i Hos Md SUI
- seton brough, sgns: any number ss ;nan the wSo a
;1sn s and the sse c%r win give upon
obhsaton only Of the parry or ped no 70
Al Vaughan VIM Saund 39; hees sgi AboDi OK Looy
ss Hoss s $751; Md s b. several =. veil of join. Al,
where the obis ond ulcm'ees Jo'nty sni MI. %
sg ~ ,s1 separstey He may .leh bring di'toc
sss.s zach .hsm judsmeD: without satisfaction
DE will be seti1n against .nOtb-fi but
.nsh be may MAINTAIN dnet actions sssos, each be c,nn
INIT mo .cion or any nomoJ n0 ts o. ss
ssrss,fs,o a., .r,.5, r R. 3sai Y.A B.S vol ~ H.
al 81 - 70 c.bu .s' VansOsG '-p,i , and .eve,.,
,sl he par,is contract, b Cd ,he@s i've.
= ~ 90" so giii III irdiSidni Obligation for The debt
ana support Of the plaintiff: iis aie @
s.i dY,rs fpr the debt them jointly sn TesIred .
DR. IKE sgi Mitchell Eesi, -D me az S & -
"a GO his promi,sry the puinth III paynelt OF nv
z up,n The coyeDsn aud the noe y y 1"s m ,it bso
sued ali the parties the covenant aud hey pealso M 5
ia Firboonsh decafed that be understood The Prnepe
f,o1, in ,em j4dfcgtum apply o. 20 me cans" 81 a
which the judgment was rendered s @s1.e Of action
from tLst on the covenant aud Gros' saia ha', nJ
hs % received 10 s,iisfacD, II could operate ony as coz
"s,i Sec that tho Judgement was ecoyeied gpon a.
il pr dUced satisfaction "a Ilel; si' mn, the
therefore might sin resort 70 his ofenai eoS Up ~ ,b
.ovepaIt do consider the reasoning OF me S,l ~
~ s,, d and acted upon acrwad IN the cases OF Robert
son act NTH hing agt. Hoare before IerIiu o.
n. d.br in an acton upon the original conisc Ply a. W."
,one., from tue atoorit,s slreldy cited the en@c
he sco SSa, !, as h. contract alone, aud such jlde
mer given upon !; re 9nmcP p Kare res is that
after Judgment against one another scou Ill b .,
Jpn lie joint ntraet as the S sn'e same marty for the
sam deb ana the rsolt in Ike agt mitchell ~ t
e. spast all the parties the covenant alter jag
~ % sesns. oor Of upon note given for The
deb. by the covenant such IS te $50 h T. 1,U iotIv
,,d with Pei and Judgment given for The "
there will be- Judgments agtns nm l3f he ,"o ~
csnn,t be- LoId Eenboough and me ohef ,uass ~
GET Mct supp s.d that actual satisfaction Is the @ ana a
becsuse plaintiff has taken an individual oehgaql o
h. lont debtors. he can have Two Judgments Is
lie 4, me eb upon Joint and oi7 uPh ne
issiioo f satisfaction was tne te', ana quo Ion If h pre
bar, 1t would he complete aus"tI 70 lne s,afa
vious recovery Of judsment against one IN al IN
o, debtors tina, 1t had not in the laugGage oil ,he ooa
0sk. sa tchei Produced the fruit OF ndgm'nt-tct
satisfaction But it deemed no answer "a at.
ud ucnt alone held To be bar because Shangtu az III
dcb,cdnes upon intact debt OF tco, ana l"i ne %
NOR, ny given by Mr. Justice Park In hus as d1dre mat
one az nt contractors mot be twice trolbcd Tor me dae
that mere could not be Two separate Judgments tot The
same deb When judgment has been obtained ~ uro
the light given by the record megs the Interior remedy o a
for he san, debt Nor think that the distinction 'aSen by
Lord ri, Dbooug the and the note constituted
distinc of action was substantial one 'ne
upop the for the same debt aDd - enoeI
sgams the patty upon tne covenant was COM
the principle rvrd 20 The fact tha me law upon s
jet wasuot we'll uudcstood ana hau 10" W., lie oo,
defined when DIske Mitchell was decided Whrh the po'
came up 'I consider uo ~ ths Ste m Of
that judsnrI against one Joint debtor was an 81
the rish against the rest there was VI
tSbe.b ss Vaudeville g. Crauch 25 And yet that decision
,upporied as by the weisoy Authority o Sne 1u,t
mo h King ast Holrc decided in England late as
l8i4 the dicta Judges was ci"d eg ans he
tio9 couted.d for and the point was found 70 De
doubtful upon the authorities a. TO draw nom baioh taA
DELIVERING Of the Court, The oO'crV@th a
n the question had been actually ooea II
England. If law, then Sts 10 obscure ." % g,
this ~ iu IL may eNpitin why the judges n
Mitchell thoueh'n the before them that h"'nns '"''
actual Subtraction wOnld he bar a.. -. .cd I'm
Separate ud sment might be mad against the h'.'I anu ~
Sor. Of mon s.ory note aud aeaus' each OF the Piie' 70 a.
ins,rur where they had bound icemsS We. ~ ~, -
as iiptly bu, tbou,h each Judgment Is t1r tue sa,
seaint separate person ana o.s nov ired would be- a
snomsy an the law aud with the notion OF coec
aud regular Judicial pIocecdinr Nv" Jaosnon'S '' s
bSs Gone ut, his examination Of the authorities, thous
there recent decision IN TINS Sae ~hoh 'S
Point agt sanford, DEMO, &i-hecanse me cas-
b,Lc ae Mch. is relied here, aud does not appa
have brn considered to have been rte ivd u" III lc
al thai case Que psner purchased qaahuty oil 49,
plaintiff the note and passe aSay aud nor oe
at maturity be and the maker were sn"d npon u aua
,ncd both partner, for the price Of The wool purchase
upon their ,ut But the CONT held opin,lns tR
the ,s pS,sSs " Of Be WOOL tia, the judgment n
on the promissory note gwen 10y one OF Them ~oi.
tipt contact that 30 cxuguh the joint contract WAS n
necessary satisfaction should follow The judgment T 70
idsmeui performed office. rhs decision IN drc' COZ
biske agt Mitchell, II lcgmste and logical q
from the principle Established by Robertson at sm'
the point iu question might have given Jli
ep upon authority Of TINS cause alone
as It's conflict with Dke Mitchell and as the law "
that felt called upon 90 give the question more il al
extended examination judgment Is rendered f'l the deicnda
Before Judge BR,py.
DECISIONS.
The People SC. agt Corey Motion granted.
Wllliaa,s agt Carroll Motion denied without cost
Palam sgt Hasse.-Motion denied
Mahouey agt ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS order d
missed without costs
Brown agt Daniu-No costs should be allowed.
Narr agt NaIr Order refused