New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1866-11-03
CIVIL COURTS.
SUPREME COURT-CHAMBRRs-Noy. e.-Before Nj jus
tIce BARNARD
A RRBFI GFNRRAT IN TRorRTy--BfVAI,G OMpA Mis-

/
tioe BAKNARn
REBEt GENERAL IN rRoUBGy-RIvAL COMPANIES
| - Cornelius Garrison agt VIM Malone
Inc DEFENDANT IN this case Is the Gen. Mahone VINO
tho letter days Of the civil considerable reputation
in tie Confederate service The brought against him
Of attachment The adayits Of tie paatiS aegc tai tits
attachment was made G the purpose Of using the law opPess
there and could not give bonds that the plaintiff had arranged
sale Of the vessel for s2io0 just before her aud that
owing 70 that he unable to deliver her.
Mr. Malone being in New-YOrk tue plaintiff commenced
him arrested and held bail in $4,000 Subsequently the
plaintiff procured the surrender Of the vessel depoung
| 5000
The defendant now comes in and moves to discharge the
erced the action which the vessel attached but the
Norfolk and Petersburg Railroad which President
That a contract entered BY the railroad with line Of
steamers Of which the George Leery was one to run nom Bal
mOre Norfolk in connection with their line That ubse
quenty the defendant having found that the plaintiff
railroad viz the Baltimore Steam Packet Company by advice
the companys counsel action commenced for the
breach OF contract 10 protect them from very results
The plaintiff In opposition read adaSits to show that when
the contract spoken Of by the defendant was made he vas not
the OF the vessel but became so subsequently that down
to the when the vessel seized she was in the fulfill
mcnt OF the contract and that the defendant himself seized the
vessel and when applied to to surrender her refused unless on
It was argued on the part Of the defendant coad
be liable for the act OF the Company and even ne were that
the attachment OF vessel under regular process OF law before
tho suit determined against her gave no ground Of action
A. Pryor and Il Guernsey for motion; Gilbert Dean
TIKI ooSsTTUTIoSALTY THE LAW OF 1865 RESTRAINING
EXECUTIONS AGAINST TEE CITY DENIED
John W. Hadfed agt The Mayor Aldermen &c
The following decision has rendered BY Justice Barbour
and fully explains the case Barboar ). -. D., -.
This motion the part Of the defendants Tor an order
vacang and setting aside execution issued upon the a
this action and is based upon the fifth section OF chap
for this city which provides that the amount OF oil final udg
recovered against the Mayor Aldermen &c after
the ysar is h 5s Included By the conoT %
next annual report budget aud shall be included An
the
unt the MONEYS 90 pay such judgments shn have been 50
the amount judgment shall have seen included n
the noxt aKleyy passed by the Legislature Inc Judgment
recovered subsequent 70 the passage of that act but e
contract upon which founded entered into before e
ia NOT necessary consider this question whether the
strcton In regard executions OF Judgments above referred to
expressed the title Of the act OF whether such set embraces
the third article ofthe Constitution IL sufficient to say in this
ease that tie intention and design OF the provision t
plaintiff In a Judgment recovered upon q contract
sne5 A .es was passed. Of Rs remedy upon such
Judgment and hLs rights Hereunder forever, unless
law provided for its payment The question the IN
eonstuonay OF statutes OF this Character is now so wei set
tied decisions in the Supreme Court of the United
States and elsewhere that nothing necessary here beyond
oIronson az KFwn How T. $ r. 35; AcCIacken AIT Hay
sg BaHmsgriner at Peeart Miss r. 40 see also
Sedgwick or stat and Cons Law a. ct seq AMI Keats
Com, 43o The motion must be denied with 80 costs
" sPTe 9 TLRSBciop &r y Ja1ti tS BsS S
THT LAW or EQUITABLE EsToPPEL-AN INTERESTING CASE
TOUCHING THE RIGHTS OF THOSE BUYING AND SELLING
IyTEREsTs IN PATENTS.
Monmouth H. Chambers agt Frederick Chamberlain ct al
Iv the findings the Court appears that the 18th day
Of july ls6 tters patent the defendant ChaH
bean and DR. Beach Tor Improvement IN seadgsing
hard rubber collars &C. and before the issuing Of such
letters patent Dr. Beach assigned interest Of twohrds of
tie invention to the defendant Chamberlain
arrangement was entered into between the defendant
Chamberlain, the plaintiff AMI one Isdale By which II
Of the invocation patent Iisae - per cent and Chamber
lain retain Ike per cent AnerWard waen the papers came
10 be drawn the Pmlnln vas eIlo!e5a 70 uFaN ~
same and being embarrassed IN his circumstances ne
requested that ali his interest in the patent might be assigned
10 his wife Tie defendant Chamberlain Sseled 70 sueh ar
rangcncn and executed 20 plaintiff VIE lat was at TIE
supposed to De y per cent Of the whole patent This
assignment in conveyed but per cent Of defendant Cham
beus interest which - per cent OF % per cent Neither
W & & u din the paoeT designed 10 transfer 10 plain
tf wife an the interest that defendant Chamberlain had
agreed transfer the plaintiff and first Informed TINT
he had done long time aferward by patent agent
In FcIraafy 1865 Plaintiffs wife assigned other parties
all in the said patent the plaintiff drawing all the
papers receiving al the consideration thus making him
tn real party in interest in the transaction
Thc parties receiving the SAID assignment supposed IN good
h that e weir 6 bi M ItsS sn5 sc Tn
and pay the purchase price and they did so
These assees having afterwards assigned their interest 70
@.ers they rcegiyed ig paid stock 2 good @ IN the NS
% the defendants the BASE oni IN the proportions that
they had owned and had assigned % per cent OF the whole
Tic plaintiff did not record his agreement in tie Patent Of
fee between himself the defendant Chamberlain and Ilsae
bis wife in the above referred TO- had as
signed and corrupted all her interest In the patent
part OF the plaintiff clmcd that By the agree
Chamberlain had agreed % transfer 10 hun
- pr Of whole patent aud had transferred 20 INN cny
- per cent OF Chamberans tw0tir interest which latter
alone had been transferred 10 his wife he brings his acton 10
recover the difference between - per cent OF OF per cent ana =
per cent Of 100 per cent
The defendants show the plaintiff himself supposed az
time he getting all the stock that he had agreed
drew all the papers himself and knew Tie company
was formed suppsiion that he had transferred MI me
interest which no possessed n the patent and that he ms ioun
that he might per- nps claim interest by reason Of the error
IN the wording of the agreement through patent agent VINO
had examined the papers. -,
They Court held that plaintiff bound by an oqliaoe
estnr nom asserting maintaining. having an! fxt 10
said tcnt or any the said Company interest IA IT'S
dividends, or any claim demand against the defendants or
either of them and dismissed the pnih con paint
oriup Judgment defendants all the issues IN the
action. with costs 10 be taxed q. mn
Townsend Dyott & Morrison fDr plaintiff Amos e. HUI
and Daniel b. Chls for the defendants.
SUPERIOR COURT-SrEclAL TER,t-Noy Before JUS
tcc BARBOUR.
LAW OT SUMMARY PROCREDiNGS-TENANT HUNT
Authority or DISTRICT COURTS
Mau Bean agt Samuel NJ Peinngl ct al
The plantH entered into the house No. % Forty
second Il ON the first OF Nav last at rent Of s500 and m the
lease there WINS condition that she would Yacate the premises