New-York daily tribune., 1859-01-22

/
Nj 1t,le fer P.infis; Henry CLIFTON for dfensrni
/ osgurrrs agt Mc3Cir--
The lent 10 recover which tbs acton WAS brought
accrued '-r the death Of tbe ess-r aud eo.s' % the s
,s,ps the estate Of ss a, te.tor eAa sIy be etfor
sssn. Der v'ee .ban apPeU ts the PsF'oa.l
assets = tbe deeeased uo .uf'ut 20 pay 9e c'clir.e
AL from tb4 r.-roA rprs- Natives u <. yiset
Statute q 6ss. T6s defendant therefore in
| af s., Cs.H. fr5m th- defeHa,H: .lm s-ssi TO
hsys tesn rsi T .tsr' %ss 5ae .;b s i.ps
should have paid oos, sppssr hJ he comps,; when
nen' Of ,cti Tn psItih pas i;el ios tas
70 uate out h tat deuant the ooetion %
Tay he ,itt' ie,e eaiiis tue use Of 'hs ~ go. ne.
H.H'or .,t wfn lJohn, s-s Efr. Il y.a Reh,lse!
@ :st In - o. .'.,I Jesn' C9,,. ~; .91 gasS sa
Tie feet ths the pad Po:ec her s'ta'e neither
rev,s tse dsfetdat from the blreeus Of hs e2venSa'
in that respc' TIE facts witch this controversy must De
ce'erued do pstet auy aspect favorable 70 the aoTance
O. tie defeuGal coIt-r claim sg1s. TIE psloit demard
r equity, the p,n;i could b. compelled 70 discharge
eeb Of tie ttsto hica ample provision va, mate BY
law snd have that the stsIte has tehrt he ciicn
'ia ce UI Der yba AZ az the devise ose1,ng Aoe oos
Rep Sg1 none u which ,PPe'r 10 tn, c,s There is no ne
ce.y for any equitable Intervention TIE drye tikes the
cum the personal oe hr:, ,ppr9Pri,.ed
recourse car b. h.d 70 the rea hias the P'nh entitled 20
ih amount of the rent aimed v.rtic' % accordingly
BRADY, J.-Assumpsit would lie At common law Tor
Isnt upon an s1rr' but n.t upon an implied pr 1'e
Wen 1851 even wb,re the u.e sud Occupation BY per-
,ua.ob Of the plaintiff (Lesi. Wallace Baers p 1881
Of seton rs.on,te .s;aan for he an ocsup.ion Of
any d' or ien es By any person usdsr .ay sre1ea' 70,
.It,d tie fels,ion Of landlord and tenant founded
.ols ssrssutHt expressed cr Implied. Saith stewart
John, r. S o.soed T De%rJ IL John S;i ~, 40 tse
FeatseIstonhsus5 Badshaw See also, Weed ag
wleeH DeIi9 81 1.-THE ag'a haa ses.ed % In b. com o1S
had c,med sum reasonable sti'iacton therefor mat
lie Tpudistee the reson OF landlord and ensn BY aesns
that the defendant wrongy anteed upoa and took possession
r 1 the pefio8 n,msd he bsa:s to Geadali q. atrs.
pser aud claims n for the wrongful use sad o
tre.pvs because it comrtted another state Watts
Admnator ss Kinney. IS Weud 40 or for ihe USE snd
Se sn acon could Be based Tsc defendant there
titled Judgment but the plaintiff has liberty - ,uend 50
advised IN days payment Of TIE coit OF the Issue az Jaw
Smith AZ DonuelJ -,
BRADY, J-It Is enough t. say iu refererce to THE
motion rgL Of the pan the relief sought by this
action very doubtful by The nterp'sed and
psired Of is decidedly against the Truth Of ct m,ie
Under these circumstances this Count would not be usthed IN
by junction in the solicited The motion
viii be denied however without prejudice to the plaintiff,
t renew it, adyi'ed so TO DO on further proof 81 co'a
OF the motion 10 defendant, 20 abide event.
Frost sgt. Brennan.
BRADY, J.-Tre answer in this case IS not SUI
fcenty definite Whether the def ndan 70 aege that
nce the levy goods seized sold ard the Judgment
sued upn paid in that does not distinctly appear aud
copy within days after the service Of this order II The
Judgment was paid it right tha the inquest should De paea
unless the goods seized TN detained time Of eomuenes
Tie motion aide inquest held in sbeyance until tn.
time gd expires ~hen it may be resumed On one DAYS
Wsl.b &C. ast Kur,heedt.
BRADY. 1.-THE copy Of the oompl iint need not be
the twenty day. slowed BY the code demands writing
copy o the complaint specng place Sithn me sse wn.e
code ana i The defendant caused notice Of aPge,sscs.
&c served BY his attorney in this and superadded % sh
served at ny Office No iiO Broadway CITY oi New.
York The plaintiff, treating this notice and require nens SIS
notice ppeara3ce only omitted to OF the com
Paint and preceded TO enter judgment The sate dos ot
ny psrcusr to1n o. s1presop and therefore be made
without reference to the ansaas employed me dam,n
claim 70 with authority aud - require Is to demsnd 20
a. % al be .red pon bm Il ia de-
maIdiEs ri oil 'aPeT .hs be 80 ser 'etyse a comp sss
which shaud upon the defendant he either de-
% e cFf fe IT, p,h. G proee.eaI are SsoT irregular
be aide. Leave however will bssisen the plain
defendant and without th, motion either party
LuliDg a., Stanton, &c. ,
BRADY, 1.-THE summons il this action ia in tho
proper form TIE action sgansi common caer usiy 81
io'on I w r ard not .Eety aPqu % D ps Isssat
npo.d uuqud-ted dsDsGe Such the case here TIE
Indignant for the aazresats ,nm u IS ms ou now
and s not provided for b. the contract ine h" SUB
Vide for the payment money Tb, the view Of the late
Justice B.rcpo How, pr Rep 505' aud in my opinion is
sn op expressed Of the proper form Of the summons
k-eq rg,e ,a, saith 4 HoT So D39 r az; bSG~ns
Code Re- 10, FlyD sat HUDSON RIVER Railroad ComP.oy
How 50 The motion is therefore denied but without co'
the authorities beI somewha, in conflict on the question
ADdrew.sg Murny . -,
BRADY, J.-Tne complaint upon examination VIII
b. fond contain enough constitute Of scton
The certificate which filed the 18th April, ls55 pro-
yds ta tie trustees OF tie Company houi Of three
person. and named ITEM a. the person, wh should manage
hs of THE Company fr the hrst The plaintiff
be accepted the oce Of Trustee and entered upon ad
continued TO discharge the duties thereof un. the 9TH April
nse to msIsse tie bushes. Of the csmps0y for the
ensuing year T1 not stating The fsct dirscuy mat tne
plauuf faa ceased TO sct as ru'te bat i i:em n'
4 facts which admit. Of 70 other conclusion std /. clearly %
c Isl ard upon the election alleged he ceased 70 De lsIee
Ts dposs Of the frat objection urged On hs demufIt
The lh section Of the act .upr. annually ade and with
r twenty day. from the h't day Of January IA each year. was
1855 any .iace showing the ,nount Of capita paid
II at ast Fsod .. q. sny gsr9d ,He,so s2a
Substantially allegation tha, such report was made
10 comment On tas feature Of tie Complain bsca1.e hnk
that 'ne setion prrdated of the omission = he se re-
Por required within the days from the hr' Jsuuy
le5 hs setou could not be msItained nsnuch as the
ag'h was no. recovered aud tne oeot dd not At uutI
ne eh april e5 i6e coupsin "ss Dot denui aOe sase
udshe might es I, To be my euty > give judgment io tae
defendant but sueh noi bsing TIE law Necessary 70 do eE
mine 4'ontrs al the aeis alleged 70 1- tta ias
IAIh emitted to reooyer Applying 81, ile thsn aa !.
ION ,te fn. jsuuny is5s he otly question sfoaa5.
b dsp0led Of whether judgment fr costs is dob;
TIE lesal 'cceFtan Of deb; Of money due by certain
and e1pTess sgrseUslt yobs Law De- b Com i5 mat
tsI O; Denny aEt Manu- Co. HILL Z IL !s s.s) sad by ia
co under debt that whstsyer the law order say TO
Tsy 5st becomes Instantly deb, VbiI be haih beforehand
CtLtrlco o. scl aud doubt notthe Judgment against
he Railway Steam BIs Works Company for cost deb.
tie within toe vescg of Ia section referred
70. Tte statute ensr.c. s.b ,x,tns and all that snail be
made. tsse Garrison sst. Howe II n Y, Rep i53)
an Il opiIn therefore. that judgment must 1- gwen ior
ths paLtf demurrer rh liberty ho~evsr = the de-
fr ants 20 Hswer il Hy days payment o tie costs c
tk- i.sue 0f law.
OTseE,d accordingly
srRROGATE'g COURT-Jsn 2-Bsfore EDWARD c. WEST