New-York daily tribune., 1861-08-28
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs--GKsxRAL TERs-ArG. 1n-
Before Judges DAILY, BRADT, and HrLTos.

In the Common Pleas General Term, Judge Brady,
for the Court has rendered several brief and ioteres
ing opinions.
HINT TO THE LEGAL FRATERNITY.
In the case Of Stilson sgt. Todd g. johnson, Judge
Brady gives lawyers who run their clients into nm
necessary expense gentle hint that such course Is
not Just to tue client He says: This appeal pre-
ssnts for our confederation 10 question OF law Ihe
evidence on the issue OF fact s 10 respects coz
ictng but abundsnty sufficient TO sustain the aliega.
tious Of the plaintiff The Judgment must tnereo1e
be affirmed. We have frequently dec Jared the rule
iu cases kindred to this and the result OF an appeal in
them is evident, as to occasion regret that iganis
should be subjected to the unnecessary expense ana
delay Of an appeal"
CHARGE on A MARRIED woNAE's SEPARATE ESTATE
In the Of Vincent agt. Buhler, the Judge rem
dered the following opinion;
I" The lease executed by Mrs. Bubler contained
covenants on her part to pay the and her estate
he enforced agsnst her. and the contract was void for
want Of mutually Of obligation. married woman
cannot make contract, except in reference to her
separate estate and the intention TO charge the sepa-
rate estate must be expressed in the contract, Ia
writing (Yalo agt. Dederer 22 N. Y. Rep, 45o.l
In this case there s proof Of any separate estate
owned by the defendants wife. A married woman
cannot be lessee, for her free will is 90 Suspended
during coverture that she may plead est tactum to
an action on any covenant contain cd in the lease For
use and occupation her baron viii be liable. Wood
falls Land. and Ten, lJ.
She may, under the acts OF 1913 and ls4s take
rent thus leaving the chate real uncontrolled by and
rot dependent upon covenants DARBY agt Calla'
gban, 16 N. Y. Rep, H.
eiou Law, l57), married woman may be bound by
ber contract in reference to her sole separate busi
nes0, the husband being relieved from any liability
upon such obligations But in this the occupancy
o the premises by tho defendant and his payment Of
the rent sometimes which to be paid by the cove
nans In the lease, amount TO recognition or ratica-
lion Of the contract to pay, and, at ali events create
..l..l a., ard
ton.
"The judgment should be affirmed"
REsPossIBILrrY or EsIGRAET COMMISSIONERS FOR
BAGGAGE.
In the case Of Gustav Won ARK agt. The Commits
siouers of Emigration, the following opinion was rom
dered: "TheIe is nothing in this case 70 distinguish
Il in principle IRON Semer sgt. The Commissioners OF
Emigration Il Hilton 2il). The baggage Of ARK was
taken in charge aud conveyed to Castle GARDEN by the
persons employed by the railroad companies, and by
the regulations .blished there, the baggage OF all
emigrant passengers was kept in the custody OF en
ployeee OF those companies until delivered TO the own
or or claimsnt. The Commissioners are pable officers
charged with the performance OF certain puolic duties
under law of the ST .te and even If the persons who
bad custody Of the baggage could be regarded "a the
employees Of the Commissioner, and acting under
their control and direction still the Commissioners
wCnld no. be responsible for all INJURY resulting from
the neglect misconduct OF cir suboriinaes unless
the act Of the subordinate which cansed the injury
was doue in pursuance OF directions received from
the Commissioners, OF unless IL was euOWn THAT
the Commissioners acted negligently in appointing
such persons 10 discharge the duties assigned theui
Nothing Of the kind appeared here The various stat,
ues defining the powers and duties OF The Commission
es do not mpoe upon them the duty OF taking charge
of the baggage of eigant passengers Of transport
ing and delivering il TO the claimant 10 Castle Garden,
and unless they undertook the performance Of that duty
they cannot held responsible They to the
Selves ia their arrangement with the railroad compa'
MES and in the assignment 10 them OF Castle Garden,
the gt Of establishing regulations for the protection
of emgrants from fraud imposition OF any Kind ana
for tho government and preservation Of order in the
premises leaeed What those regulations were do not
appear, further than what WAS disclosed IN the
testimony Of Mr.. Samyne, one oil the Commls-
sioneIs and from his Testimony It appears thaE the
Commissioners had nothing to do with the recep.
ton, transportation, custody or delivery OF
baggage. BY the regulations established that service
was performed by the employees OF tie railroad COM
panies and these companies are the parties responsible
for any neglect In that particular. The Commission
es in the lease before referred to- and by the arrange
ment made by them with the companies, have the right
Of excluding any company or its employees from Castle
Garden, and the General Superintendent, appointed by
the companies for the conducting OF business between
them and the emigrents, is appointed subject to the
approval Of the Commissioners. But this hight OF con-
troll and supervision does not render the Commissioners
responsible for amy injury TO or the loss OF baggage,
unless they directly interfere in the matter OF its ecep
tion, carriage aud safe keeping. And there is nothing
in this case show tina, they iutertered In any way or
took upon themselves any responsibility In that matter.
The judgment must be reyerSed'
AN ACTION CANNOT BIZ MAINTAINED IN oSEs OWN
NAME FOR GOODS SOLD ny PREDECESSOR.
This was the OF Thompson agt Geuber. The
Judge says
"lrhe plainif styles bimsef in his business as the
Waterbury Brass Agency, designation assumed
for the purpose Of dposng Of the goods OF the several
corporaions who intruss him with tie sale Of them.
He wGs preceded by Alexander Anderson, who is now
dead but who, duiDg his lifetime, made him hls attor
ney for the transaction of any business connected
with the Waterbury Brass Agency. Dming the life
OF Anderson, and while lac carried the business Of
the agency, the defendant purchased some goods from
him. and therefor this action was brought.
and upon the ground that the plaatf could not main
predecessor. The ruling OF the Cours below was
press trrs could under the Code maintain an action
in his own name TO recover for the goods sold by him.
cannot be inquired into in this Upon bs death
the agency ceased and the trust 10 him longer
listed. The only person then in whose name this ac-
tion could be maintained was the principal for whom
the goods were sold. The power OF attorney given In
evidence does not affect this conclusion III any manner
II had vitality alter the death Of Anderson. Inc
plaintiff could not the attorney OF decedent-
the trust not couliunng one, which was cGpaoie
of being transferred and If the sale was one personal
TO Anderson then his representatives only could mann
tain tue action.
"Tne Judgment must be affirmed"
DUTIES OF coYsrABLEs IN RELATloS To ATTACHMENTS
PROM JUSTICES COURTS.
In regard TO the ease Of Egbert sgt' Walsoh' INC
Judge says: c,,.,
"When an attachment issues from a Justices Conrl