The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1866-07-19
ACTON AGAINST THE SECOND AVENUE aNLaon COMPANY.
Supreme Court-Cha mbers.
Before Judge Clerlke.


Before Judge Gerke.
William COLEMAN ana Cdthariae Muli3an u.s. Tie
Second Arenue Railroad Company and Bsnjarin T.
Sco'cy-This was motion made on the part of the de-
PENDANT Sealey for judgment in his favor agans. his
defendants, the Second Avenue Railroad Company, upon
the report Of b. w. Bonney ESQ., tho referee heren for
the Of about 800 900 The material facts. accord
ing to the papers in the case, substantially
follows:-In December, 1852. the city OF New
York conveyed TO Denton Pcarsa and eight other per-
right privilege 20 lag the track used by the
above named company in this city. In January.
1858, the company was organized and became a cor.
poaton under the general railroad OF this State In
November 1885, the grantees sold aud assigned their
5000 900. In November, 1861, the plaintiff, william,
Coleman purchased from the grantees their assgnces
thir,y-one forteths of this claim and with Mrs Caths-
rne Mulgan, the other plaintiff. represented six-for.
teths administrators OF the estate OF Richard T. Mu
lgan deceased The other threefortieths belonged
the defendant Sealey. Before the commencement OF
this action Mr.. Sealey was requested to Join with the
plaintiffs In the prosecution Of the SANE but declined so
to do,
On the 9th day of December 1861 this suit was ins,i-
tued to the sum Of $500 600 and interest and
Mr. Seaiey necessarily made defendant under Sec
ton 1l9 Of the Code copy OF the aud COM
plant served Sealoy at about the time this action
begun. when he appeared by r. BOVINE his attor
ney. Mr. Bovine put in no answer nor had he taken
any steps in the until he gave notice OF this motion
The company inerposed TO the complaint, al
egng among other things that the grantees had
signabe interest in the grant franchise referred
and setting up, also the statute OF limitations The
hearing Of the case before the referee about
April 1858, and continued from time 70 time for
about forty meetings, when, ON the Tth OF Uecember,
1884, il finally Submitted, and on the yh OF june
tha. the plaintiffs wore sutitled 10 judgment Cor
$24,238 co. On the 2Sth OF June Judgment entered
upc the report for the last named together with
NAafu ma tum IN all - Il.lu a
A. A. Thompson appeared as tho attorney and cxJgige
Edmonds the counsel for the plaintiffs upon the trial
Upon this motion Judge Edmonds Appeared Tor sesey
aad contended that the motion should be grantcd for
tie reason that the referee had foond that seay vas
entitled to threo-forteths OF the claim; that the com:
mny had admitted by their that part OF the
daim had boon paid and that all this could he done
without disturbing the Judgment already entered
favor Of tho plants which hc utterly opposed TO-
Judge Thompson for the PLAINTIFF and Messrs John Slos
s." and John Ss the the
purpose OF guarding tho rghts Of the plaintiffs and mat
he should abstain from forming any eutangliug alliance
ing hat sealey had boon fully appraised or the proceed
ings the action for nearly nvc years and had taken
and ySss Edmona were aSs 70 'oas recover the
claim refcrred TO- Seaicy Was found snrakng and
skukns around the camp ground out Of reach of harm
and when hc sscoraned that the controversy finally
decided Ia the plaintiffs favor presented his clam
share the results OF the triumph that opposed the
motion baause no feared that II should be granted
tho Judgment OF the plaintiffs would be set aside and
the whole natter DO sent back TO the referee 10 be
hgaed; hut that II the relief sought for bv seaiey
could be granted without jeopardizne interfering with
the adjudcatcd rights OF his clients then he bad Oh
lection that the motion should prevail
The counsel for the company maintained that tho
Court had power 10 grant the relief asked for that
In no event could the notion bc granted without first
setting aside tho judgment already entered the action
and the whole sent barko the referee for rehear
ing that II was through Scaey's latches that he
was placed In his present position in tina case and that
he was not entitled 10 tho relief prayed for
The Court declined TO grant tho motion, but ordered
hat the report be sent back the referee 10 ascerain
VI any amount 10 due to Seaiey. and Il any, what
amount Eight days notie Of hearing before rerree
be served the attorney FOR tho Second Avenue Raj
road Company. Tho report, IN all other respects TO
remain az Is, with costs TO abide tse event.