New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-11-10
LAW INTELLIGENCE
SUPREME COURT-GssRRAL TEus-Nov. 9.--Bsfore
Justices SUTHERLAND. ISsRAHAs. and BOssEY.

The Peop. act Henry NJ Johnson OF the Mutual
SAFETY insurance. Company, &c.
T1ia wes reference under the provisions of tue Re
,d Statutes gung references to determine the validity Of
claims sgir dissolved corporations Dy PaatSn ana order
T. P Cole hssE and te'mine and II was provided
.orJirg 10 The the u.es except the
rsItiss consented to referee instead OF three. ,
The cain in question were taxes assessed from the Company
prior TO is dissolution and w5i:h being an
pd had been returned 70 the contIoe credited to the city
county Of kw York aud handles over to the Attoney
General Tor collection purauant the provisions Of the atdte
The Company was ehssred Oy an &C. se
BUSH City Of New YORK until October 1880 when
Of the n.s. tie COMPANY and john
duly appointed Receiver and has continued
Aer the csnsn given evidence proving the assessment.
the several Claimed and also proving the issuing Of
wrsns the e'o desnds of ment retarns by the Re
cevei of sie 70 hs Cnsmbeen OF the y o. New YORK re-
tnrps bv Chamberlain the City Of Newfok admissions
were made OF these facts covering the entire grousds
Il also sdmi ted that notices to creditors we're gwen BY
the Receiver according law and the claims in question
The assets Of the receiver amount to about SD
2oO go State claims tina. have priority other
debs question reserved BY the receiver and Is not
The main pon involved in present whether these
den ands are barred by the statute Of limitations.
The Ieree held that statute Of limitations good bar
these which have ran more than 1 .teL the snt
Of eilsoluton 80 4 appointment Of receiver.
decision Of the taxes claimed were barred but
the Of them allowed and the defendant
also allowed interest at tbs rate Of per cent from
'O Tb bsA who : amount allowed was s4s4s4 80.
cgps By The STATE Cc1tos with tie consent Of the At
e eSse; .ass ss ss 1 0 coa mat ne
CON psn. in 1854 for want OF iur.dctto0
man The Judge decided that the only remedy t6s
Of these 20 present them 70 te and
in the that adopted in the
The DEFENDANT. apply the report aside the
fhs case as ed by Cha, oConOr and Mr. Owen.
dsendsnt and AOrns, General Treuan for the people
Ueci.ia rysd.
CrRcuIr-Before Justice MrLLs.
Louis X. Menger sg- John Graham
Tbis was an acOn to r. cover balance due the PLAIN
tiff done and materials furnished By him upon the d.
t. & m OF si YEA. she pu and defendant
accounted together and TIE defendant g,ve the pn n note
n. defendant se, his claim against Meyer suckeu
stesmsbps After had sgeea upon Capt
proHure .eeu en Of ,ad note The plaintiff thrreapon called
the office said attorney and was tsss1 20 he oce q Mesr'
tiff the defendants attorney and broker TO the effect that
laid no heud surrendered and Cancelled the receipt
Of face Of the note aid interest which bargain w.'
aed and the hall paid and the note was suren
The plain = stmony showed that the time Of the
the note the plaintiff bad an Interview At tie oes q
of defendant the transaction Of uLreneeng up the note
for BIZ benefit and whether ~ ne antec 20 zoe
.Re az .ocn IS .bo1d sgcE
10 Which Capt Graham assented and promised accordingly
This promise disputed the Of the defendant and Mr.
Bond Mr. Joce TESTIFIED that they hsNd 10 such promise
Although they present al the time Of the negotiation IL
spr.sTsd tls Capt Gaham settled his csm sgns Meyer
received obSztions
have not yet matuTed
The plaintiff counsel contended that the surrender Of the
note cancellation thereof for less than its face,
did NOT bar the balance and that tie promise 70
nav the balance when he should have settled with Meyer
Bt1len hs having happsDed il became competent to
sue on the original liability
ruled that Of the with the intent
ocapcel the bar the plaintiffs But
The plaintiff conditional promissthe event having
before uent OF the action would
op.fats TO plaintiff and bis original right 20
iron the pleading aud that
question the jury say the evidence the testimony
e unptH and the testimony Of Mr. Bond and
Nj Jnce on other whether such conditional promise
by Capt Graham That II the jury should aud that such
promise male they would nnd for the plaintiff The jury
found fer the aintif.
T. Williams, plaintiff X. L. Joice, for defendant
CHAnBERs-NOy. 9-Before Justice lsGRAHAs.
DECISIONS.
James II. Scott ct al, agt. G.. z. Colton.-Motion
d,ns a. plai1 this costs 70 abide event
Samuel ShsIdow agt. John z. Elis.-motion denied,
with $40 costs. 80
Of plaintiff TO abide event .
The Same agt. the Same.-Granted; costs of motion
Before Justice LEONARD.
Cbauneey l.. Williams sgt. Daniel McFarland.-Mo-
ticu denied with $40 costa Of opposing
Before Justice MuLLIs.
Elias Fassett sgt SAMUEL w. 1almadge ct a.-Ho-
tiou deried with & 10 costs