New-York tribune., 1867-10-10
CIVIL COURTS.
COURT OF APPEALS.
DECISIONS.


AtR,NY. Oct. 9.-The following are the deci-
.ons in the Conrt Of Appeals at the consultation com,
mencng Sept 1867. argued In the June term OF said
Court ,,,,,n
No l. People. plaintiff in error We lewis, defendant IN
Mos RESPONDENT VS. Brisbane appellant g. In matter Of
Robinson trustee, etc Oron appellant vs. Orton re-
spondent; .. Merchant VS.. Bnnne; 10, van Dusen vs.
pres Church. TT. Edward H. Ring respondentys steele;
II? Delahed DeGraw; 13, Davis apPeant VS. Dunes'
respondent; H. Van DervoOr respondent VS. OOulu, ap-
peian l5 Hageman respondent, Remsen, appellant;
l6 Benedict respondent, DeGroot, appeIan ~ Dun
ham, respondent, vs. Troy Union RalrOad Company, ap
nSiiant Ia Percy appellant vs. Ten Eyck, respondent;
TO- Reed respondent, The CRY OF BunAlo appellants
22 Barker appellant. White, etc. respondentS 70,
Rawes VS. Desler; &C. Butchers and Droyes Bank vs.
Jacobson appellants; q, sawyer vs. nDpcI US a. O'
Savage vs. The Corn Exchange Fire Department IN
snrance CO.. 81 Ratcli appellant Carey, respondent
s2 Osgood vs. Iaytin 49, Jacobs respondent vs. Reson
az lSorris abpeant, VS. Ward respondents 3s, People,
respondent, Acton appellant; 80 Garuhe appeant,
Tyler, respondent; 40. Pnder respondent, vs. hugs
County Fire insurance Co.. BrOokyn; 81, Farnham, re-
spondcnt vs. Mallory with modlhcatonG 49, Haywood,
appellant, VS.. Liverpool and London FIRE insurance
Co. respondent; 49, McCleland, respondent vs. Ramsen
appellant; As, Thomas, respondent vs. hunt appel
lan &C. latham, respondent vs. Goodrich appeHahl 49,
Favor respondent, agt. Eighhaye. Railroad Co., ap-
peants; ~, Burnett, respondent ag PhalOn appel,
Co appellants: 81, Mayor Of New. York, &C. agt Ex-
change Insurance CO.. aipeantSj o. story respondent,
agt Conger appellant 53 Beardsey Scythe Co., appel
lants, agt Foster, respondent; 81 Desyhty appellant,
ag Britt. respondent; &c. Davis, appellant agt M0rrs,
respondent; 81 secor, respondent, agt Law" apPsn4t
co. Bank OF the State OF Indiana, appellants ag Busbse
respondents 50, Mason, respondent, aSt Authon!, aP
peant C5, schneider, respondent, agt Mclean, appel
liant; 81 owen. respondent agt Cawley, appellant; 69
Rawey respondent, agt. Empire Insurance CO., appel
liant; TO- StOrer respondent, agt Eychshemer, appel
liant ~ the matter Of Saltus, &c %, Melvin re-
spoudent agt. Wood appellants a.. Ranger appellant
agt Goodrich, respondent: -, Atlantic Dock Co. re-
spondcnts agt City of Brooklyn, appellants; &C. Hewitt
respondent. agt. Fisk appellant ", Moak, appellant
agt. Coats, respondent -
Judgments were reserved in the following cases No
Cookiv8. New-York c. Railroad Company 3, New-N0rA
Life Insurance and Trust Company, appellant vs. CoYent
respondent; 90 Bruce Davenport 81 Hatch VsPryOr
&C. LOriard. respondent Silver appellant; A. tus-
SELL appellant RUSSELL respondents also, van hleek
Va. Woodruff. and Foster Van Wyck; 6l TOmlnson,
respondent, Wilcox, appellant; 63, Witherhead,
respondent, Allen, appellant Gi Matuce, RESPOND
en Allen, appellant Gs Orr VS.. the City OF Brook
lyn
CASES DISMISSED.
No 2j Rawles va. Deshlcr; 20, HasbrOok VS. Kingston
Board of Education; 81 Chevcr and wife vs. Granger
affirmed on merits; II, Rguoy va. savoy.
REARGUMENT ORDERED.
No a, Swift City OF Ponghkeepsie No. &C. Com
mcrcial Bank Of Rochester vs.. City VI Rochester.
Court adjourned.