The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1861-06-08
supreme COurt-General Term.
Before Hon. JUDGES Clerke P J), sutherland and Sngra


Supreme COurt-General Term.
BEFORE Hon JUDGES Clerke r. J) sutherland and ingra
ham.
hg decisions In cases argued before them last MONTH
MroTge rs Norris BY the Court: The refusal of the
p a 70 Complete his purchase, because there
ease on the premises did not deprive him of the right
onJect other membranes the same property It
might have relieved the defendant from the necessity OF
nun OF the consequences of not being able to give good
title OF the premises at the time agreed on The IN
hxed for completing the contract Performance on the
part OF the plaintiff WAS not necessary, the defendant
unable 10 PERFORM except in case the plaintiff sought
W compel performance, or 20 recover damages, but not
TO rescmd the contract, AS the defendant could give
good title ht the time agreed on, the plaintiff had
contract
Judgment affirmed with costs.
L0nnsteyy ct al Derltn BY the Court: The quay,
antec and Endorsement Of consideration the or the
paper would take the Of she statute and
hpdns OF the Judge shows that the goods were actually
sold on she defendants credit yuarantor The Judge
also finds that the defendant .ndebsed TO the plain
tls in an amount exceeding the amount the note
and tnereIore that he plaintiffs right 10 recover not
affected BY the arbitration In thiswe think there
no error Even If porsion Of the amount due on the
note was TO be paid to BOuton, skill the plaintiffs
bound TO collect the whole sum in one action Judgment
affirmed With costs
Joseph SANFORD ct al rs Noah Moyris--rhc promise CT
the defendant in this case not within tue statute OF
frauds Even If it was there is enougAto warrant the
presumption that the plaintiff miseG by the defend
anu ana induced not ID nd ut the les Judgment az
nrmed with costs.
N,n. u. Anabs us conkxs ct all. We think the allie
CATION Of psrtuerpp by the defendants sufficiently
though informally averred.
2. That it is a material allegation.
That the denial in the apswer Of the endorsement of
the note In the complaint aEegcd,' msre denial Of
the writing, and is not denia! Of the part ersh'p
That there Is denial Of the partners hiein the
awer and therefore that II is nes issue tDsrcaee
The Judgment ia affirmed with Gusts.
Same IS Gray BY the Court We think in Ibis case
thf ihe perfection OF the title not necesay fact to
be proven on the partof the plaintiff title m to
recover This was Lot required by the cont act Even
ma w
shown anu 50 far he was entitled ~ CON peEsAtion
reversed and case referred back to referee
Costs 10 abide event
Colgate Russe--By the Cours The questions put
the WI snt $500 10 the title OF the stock properly
oneoas This also would 'onder il necessary to
submit the case to the jury. Judgment reserved and
new trial ordered Costs TO abide oycnt.
SALMON Skswner V1s L. Tinker BY the Court, In
graham, j. 10 s not necessary 10 decide whether tho
want Of stomp the laws ef'Coba. The OF
Ia ldlow ct al Van Rensselaer,, wOuG Sustain
the oontTact although not stamped the ourts here
partnership that has no limit ncy be dissolved Dy
cit her party at any time but such dissolution would not
DEF rive the other party Of any claim or damages which,
he might have SUSTAINED prior to the dissolution,
Id 1t authorize mourning expenses liabilities to
carr out the partnerships after NOTICE Of dissolution.
PERI ormare Tn, part of the plaintiff by appearing in
av in October and Novembt r, stated in the
tract unnecessary because the defendant had given
notice determination not ~ form the partnership
The plaintiff then entitled dausses, any
sustained 10 that time, but not to prospective dam
ages.
else in this Jedgmeas sh ud be ordered for the
plaintiff on tle verdict With COSTS
iS,ctnebne ct al &C. MicAsg ct L-By the COurt:-The
exceptions well taken rbe referees report should
aeyefound tie facts cage the defendant
the detective cha racter OF the materials
furnished Bat enough" appears satisfy that the
eieYee has erred N this respe Ct and il is not
hotter specially objected to, for inter-
ing with thoreport ahis grou ad Judgment affirmed,
nth cosDs.
James Linden, Jr., Nnry CFuham BY the
DurtThs action could be nant aimed under the act of
G5, it nigh, have seem mainu lined In equity under
system Of practice Tbs comp anan: shows state OF
cts emitting tAe plaintiff. the lief demanded far
relates to thcappOrtOnmele OF ne taxes and that the
eendaNt pay lie, proportion the eof. Judgment must
reversed and trcf ordere Costs TO abide the
|, 'ent.
John H. Hold0ae ct a.. 1ssry ~ foakino ct al BY
u 10 Cnurt-lpgrl ham, j. noZln al partner s one who
" ihout being really partner, lows his to be
III Sed Such is liable partner, although the
pCtcular creditor sJnCfant nj the time OF dealing
tfl-L the name used The bett rue this
Iioa thn:-Wsen the cot OF Il party sought to be
choyged s which II l. shown to the
odlOr, then It does not operate create the liability
but where the acts CT general notCrey and of such
cir to satisfy the jury that the Plaintiff
might have known beloved the defendant the partner
he would be Liable without direct Oof that the creditor
knew Of the fecs The finding # the referee In this
shows the acts relic Output ting defendants
card and Circulating Twas such to justify the
presumption Of 7uch kuewedget the part OF the cred
tor Although he findings Of referee not to
all The facts n evidence; st we are to consider the
general finding OF the raeree nvcvinG finding by
him all tho material onssso and the party max
,g the case, if 70 wishes any particular finding,
require the referee 30 70 End.
Judgment affirmed with cIst 8.