The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-05
The Schuyler Frauds.
SUrREMe CONFESSIONAL TERM.

pe3ofe Soa Ja0ge tngrAaGm
APRIL -Ne,o York and Neu Hayen Raitro1d Compan,
Schuyler and otas-Tho dom argued in this cass
contains the grounds Of demurrer presented
70 the in the demurrer of the defendant Cross
Upon the argument Of that demurrer the Judge Special
Term sustained the demurrer and upon appeal TO the
General Term the Judgment below affirmed. When
the case was submitted 70 the Court OF Appeals the ju
men.s below were reversed concede that in the
oppions delivered on that occasion the Court appeared TO
have decided solely the question OF mutfariolsness,
impossible for say that they did consider the
other points submitted to them stated IN the demurrer
On the contrary an bound to suppose that they would
not have reversed in the favor on
the demurrer although ,he Court might have erred on
the question Of misonder Of different Of acton
they had not been satisfied that the complaint contained
good Of action against the defendant Cross II
would Be improper for Judge Of this Court in reference
decision Of the Of Appeals 10 say that because
tain points taken in demurrer had not been sufficient
ly argued before that court, or noticed by the Justice
delivering the opinion there, no wodld decide adversely
10 hat decision, bnd send the Up again for that
Court to have the fully argued, and compel
them again TO rsviow those questions with care. II
doy 10 recognise and to follow the decisions OF that
court and on ali questions which have been presented 10
that Court shall ADOPT their decisions bin ling
conclusive. iee therefore, constrained 10 decide that
upon the questions presented by thor dcnurers Ii tue
Of Chapel and Of Carpenter and of the 1ues.
tons presented by the Other donlre,s ooly follow
the decision of the Court If Appeals holding that She
COMPLAIN, cor iaius sufficient OF action, ami
Of those grounds sufficient !, waFraut Judgment In
the deleuants favor The Other grounds taken by the
dcmuTers | do not, exLnln ltion, think bs well
founded An objection taken In OF the d,murrers
10 the defect Of parties Defendants In that the holders Of
the estate not made pares sec necessity "
make such persons defendants. The action ia CON
meuced interfere with their stock They are not
eqpss PROVE a0 ,S, aI 81 Sv the s STOCK he'd
and avermeut in the complaint, that they held
the real stock, making them defendants tina. &C
count, would be Objectionable az showing of
ton against them If in the progress OF the cause any
other persons should be found 70 bold the false stock the
plaintiffs can be required TO make them defendants but
na ato NJ n
pany Another ground OF demurrer stated behalf OF
the Mechanics Bank is toa the action bro,gh, by tbem
aud which 10 sought 10 be SUSTAINED 10 this action was
brought IN another court aud tn the should be
In that court CVncsding that rule be proper Il the
bank were the only defendant, does not apply here
90 examining the complaint IL yiI b. that soma Of
the actions brought Ia this and s,rno in tue 3D.
p.rior Court II would DO proper in such cases where
all the defendants must be in uied in e.on to bring
such acton IN erhcr court ADD from tue necessity OF
csse either court could onoln the Judgments pending ia
both courts Any rule would enable one defeu liant
10 otfeat The whole proceeding The case Of
the Farmers and Mechanics Back Of Kent County
against the Butchers and Drogess Bank (iS New York
Rep p l2o IS relied upon showing that tho Court OF
Appeals, by that decision, have thrown mach doubt
over the de3is on made IN his the demarrer or
voes g 70 Justify us 10 refusing to regard that a'clon as
that Gaze aud the present marked distinction, viz
That the Court then thought That the noo sued upoa Was
negotiable, snt tho rules, az applicable 70 negotiable pa
per, would be applicable 70 certificates OF stock in an
incorporated company check duly certified by the
oerk who was authorized TO certify checks when tho
money was 10 the baus 20 the credit Of dra ~cr
held to crcsn liability against tho bank even II 80 Cor
,oed without funds TO meet 10 sush acAse however
there is u distinction between certifying CHECK 10 DO
good and suiog false ceridc to for stock which doos
exist and csnnot DO created aai Ylaen, in his
opinion, draws tho distinction between the Mechanics
Bank case snd tho then under consideration aud says
thoy are plainly dstlngushabe from The present case
bscause the document which the question arose
was not negotiable. Sec also the opinion Of Chief jus
ttcs Dcnio la the case In KsrnaB, G23 50 TAR
tnep, az the plaintiffs seek 70 OBTAIN judsmen. de-
earing false stock issued by Schuyler 10 be OF vat
ue and tho certificate W be void. must under ths do
cson In The OF Cross hold the compliant 10 be SUN
cen That such certificates be recognized valid
and representing true stock H. think, clear II is con
rcdcd that tho company by ~ board Of directors could
create sncb stock nor IN a19 way give validity; ana
" cannot be- pretended that an aenb be authorZ to
What bis principal he'd 10 10 Blt u does not
follow that persOnH who nave suffered from the acts OF
agent, whether from negligence fraud asy no. obtain