New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-06-23
SUPREME COURT-GESERAL TERN.-June p
Aus,,s Fas,,rsst. VIM R. Prince e, a..

~.
RoosEvILT, J.-Foster, the plaintiff, having OBJ
taiu,d Judgment aeans, Mi' Prince residing Flushing IL
SsSn' H scn ys, @@d % %nd The spp
es S T e. ss Bs u ss' the
msnd. 70 ,.,... ~, ,h;, cour, A..
codngy made an requiring the Cashier Of the bank 70
appear him in this city to be examined concerning me
a sed banc Of the defndans snd enonne ne BANK "a tle
time from parting with OF ohew', asPsIs ., zoe I'M
Upon the eNaminsiion on he IN o. tne 's t i ~,
order directing hr bank to pay over me oaAhce 70 '
crediioIs. ,. -. - .....,, ia. .bi.
order was uuity; that they resided in Queens County
although the bank in the Judge in the Frat D
bark All that bank requires protection against any double
demand. And TO the judgment debtors tne p,i r'sa ~
the justice of mPns debtor residing IN Queens oosy -
Pay his sssii oa Of Gelin' p = Sr W. "
The auction raised the true Interpretation Of the
Cd H. sea and 9h sections Of which provide that in
lie the present the judgment creditor is entitled 10 order
from Judge tue Court compelling the debtor y appear
and answ before him within the county where The debtor re-
sides touching his property aud also order requiring any
dboor the Judgment debtor TO appear aud ahs~eI a. pei
Is 10 sppg IN the particular county but the debtor 70 the
idgrne, debtor appear specified ace meaning OF
course place be specified BY the Judge VINO would naturally
select place other things being equal; oet conNeeul % @
person 70 be- examined, Snd not necessarily 10 the judgment
debtor His h, to do So his fitness also is shown BY the
provision which DISPENSE with any e9hdah.e ~ So -
,uati, II ssd third party. udc % the clause IA section
"a which dece. that The Judge meanns Jadse o. tle
Cont tt any Judge Of the Supreme COurtl may also IN MS
ion require notice Of such proceeding to be gwen 70 any
,b the NAVY ., the action IA. no absolute right notes
Of the line spd place examining lis debtor be. Of course
cannot exeep % the selection! .
BY The d section which deoG, that ser the issuing OF ex
eqiou against property any person indebted to ne idsent
as shs be 70 fy the cxect on' and the s.n'
r,crip, sba b. sufficient dsse r The amount PAD No
css il will be perez ycd required part Of the Jadg
men, debtor any notice % enable him % disposed 70 pre-
veu the ation h,t which due him from person
10 the payment that which is due BY him to another H.
thrp debtor without his consent pay voluntarily now
h. complain that his dbi who4t his eoh'l las Pii
uld be- sanction Of The lId1rt
A. the defendants. may be aid in respect o. the
bank ssgeyed they cannot complain snd tls app A.
La FARCE sgt. Mansfield ct al
Iuelaham ,I.-lt l. not necessary To decide whether
the jay could npy covenant that The dnss ra'q oy we
plaintiff should be comprted by TIE IL OF s
any such covenant 70 De tle %
not see, 10 recoup any therefor and IN. oe ne
ony way IN which breach such covensnt could Or made
available 90 the defendants after TIE tenants ma ~Au
Of the pI,mises leas,d 10 them -. -. ..;. hid he
him sr a. tie ,ae time csm fat be is relieved the pay
net Of rent because part 81 the premises ny 10 con
brr III h. il entitled T. any redress therefor ae must ether
claim hy way Of damages bandon The premises ensy
is snd The Msyor g. SET M1be K-fnsn, 1911 fur
Their thar 10 allow party damages y way u e0'uP "
The al w er merely denies tbs; iy liability eNss Be aae az
premises Lot completed, and that the aei'nd' never ~
T n, covers al The alleged Of the Court IN refusing
70 charge jury ssquested By the defend eolp'e s
Tie same pine Pe dspos Of The other objections Of &c
fndsus counsel !, is ad that t5e lessee never had
Of the PREMISES but a. Ais Pil vas di,scty laae
answer the fndins Of zoe R mus = osde,.1 t,s
II the tenants al ,s-ssOLf
having retained Possession, while the premises were not com
etely fui,hd tey should either have completed az tl oSn
and chsrrd The the landlord asked redress II
iLeir answer BY way Of damages -.
having done either relief 20 b. eotalIed IL US
action foI he recovery 4 The rent
SPECIAL Tenn.
Field SCI. Ripley and O.her..
Cleke, 1.-The only partnership disclosed 10 the com
plant Yield RPy the relation of ,5e icConochs
70 the concern that consumes secured II the us way M
their advances To the security eh-stus red
Ripy allowed them voice II ne method Of Hian@fbs
the this degree invests them wih me i
.ctrr of Il them Tlzni % share II ne prs ~
does them liable Tor - d o,s -f
The complaint therefore, Claims dissolution pe
uer.hp Field ard the MsConocne. c1nnot - .ilrc
and ,i more certainly cannot D. sustained n eek. ass
luiop Of auy other kind 81 con,rset btwe-n Field k %
M. one SIDE and the cConoehes on tie o-leT there "
rxh, 70 BE- enforced or injuries BE- rdessd so"ils olt
he atoms q the eusEuee' % o;Hsrw- ch
po.e cAuuo: b. arctrd By dl.ons tie oatEsi into VINCE
hey have entered with Field Ripley. bli- Hess;s
th~f.. does not The colnPlsnt P-s-ut son- sroahl,
for he interpolation Of TIE Colrf Pied 20 r1l-+-
20 dissolution II he cCpsEtaeahiP oeiwesl nun a..
Rpley IL enough IN tb- absence II PEoyis9a ~ rs
ti specific time, tina; h- wishes dss-4ts
II entitled this why is b. a., en'ted 70 A. ic.
the MEG ouochies, st-lru.ut with th-rl isc nv
accounting P4''Ss Of scouts oei~ea go
plant ysIi0gs transactions - have Se $50
these defendants that large sIclrt Of pIopiy a ~ %
tat the parif had caused application 70 D. maze % ~,
10 them With him in disposns OF TIE PsoP-Iy ~ -
..uSus persnn the mines 10 tak- eaA.e ot =
10 which they have Refused to ..s~aL AZ t @
n-~