New-York tribune., 1867-04-12
SUPREME COCRT-GESERAL TERM-April ll-rBeiore
LEONARD, SUTHERLAND, ard ISGRAHAh, j. j.
BUILDING CONTRACTS.


BUILDING CONTRACTS.
o. u. Baldwin sgt Walter Gregory. -.
The plaintiff and defendant entered INTO Wilttch
agreement about the 23d Of April 1902 BY hat agree
Incnt the defendant was to sell ana convey 20 e rsn n
aud 10 build q houae for him said lot, which should
cost aud be worth 1000 according g plans ana sIecIma ~ ~
completed OF or bsjore tho It Of March ls69 The PLAIN
f 6sftcd 10 fufhase the lot at that pfce hnG 10 pay
nlapt ished the dcfendaht with plans and speoifi-
cation r house, and an offer OF one STnos 10 put m ~
M fer $1,000 The defendant was then absent Out on us
return in october, applied TO sinmons' VINO tneh IT,
that Il they found that the plans aud speciicaGHs no
SE6SS SipiG 70 he 10 P R ini GP pn IA would SSS o entitled
the derpuoo between the cost OF the mouse ae
cordne 10 the agreement SoC, and the value OF the
Ionsc rs testified to by the witnesses, on March which
| Would he 800, ana s,S expended on The property"
Tie toai held tIs charge wrong II implied that the
defendant was bound TO inform the palnllil OIL nc l9
siby Of fulfilling tho plans, which he was not Doohu 10
/ do and ordered y new tIlal.
y; SIr baldwin for plaintiff; Mr. Traphagen for de
/ fcndani. -
! NFGouAnILITY or MOTIFS MADE BY MtRRIED woMENS'
LE1 sAap R'spo1leh I. Aaele A. lSmSHa -: A. s
the plaintiff upon promsoy note Isaqg by tne & Ge,
iendant who was married %one 3 ~ " nT nGd @ her
separate property ard estate ~ months aief .ite,
The appellants contendcd that tho note IN question:
being made payable only out of the defendants separate
estate was prOmsOry note. Dut mere agreement,
payabic upon contingency and to which the rules OF
dfde1ce anni,ble 10 negotiable pNper did not apply,
and tat The ine of ihe Court below in reference to
The connscl Tor tho respondent coptcnded that tho
peadngs having admitted this 40 be pi3usso{ note,
the point that not never having been taken on
the tu late 10 raise The question before tbe
General Tenn that the cases IN rfaelce TO the hon
made payable @ contingent fuud. ANA that, as the
separate state Of married woman WAS the only estate
she could have making the note charge upon that was
rot limitation but tension OF the innd our or wmei
Tas I" be ad and eeing 'ne % 9T d way ~ af Eoc ctac
txccpt through equitable prcpits), II was only eqly
lent tu ea n that slc Vol-d b personally responsible
that the case shoWfd mat tuis ho. was gwen Ior @ tnc
benefit o.! her separate business; that al the equities
Court to make every mtcndmritu favorol the Judgment
o the Court below well as 10 rec ram every altcnpL
20 hamper tho nC -otinhility Of proulasnry notes -
W.B. Ackley OF counsel tor app'aH. George v. WIN
gate 81 counsel ior u~pondc'it
! Cm,ru- Before 1Ir Justice 1f,soN.
! VERDICT FOR 5000 AGAINST TnE TINED -AVl. RAIL
ROAD COMPANY.
Tgorf SO L.e TIin4Io B-i.rgsi Co -
III this sui reported bcioic ia whicll the plaintiff
brought su fUl irrcs sustained IN COLI sion between
"a ear of The doflndanis aud Iiarien freight cav The Jury
ycstcrday morning lloughtjna sealed verdict or 800
Mr In.h.e ard 1ir shailcr Tor phliAi; Mr g. Mot
~ ''' Tcfofc Mr.. Justice No,u DAVIS.
! \ TTTRitL or AN iurpErtNr ND NoYEL CiSE-IiiE
| Qur,uVN or WAEEiNn Is RELATION 40 BURGLAR
/ wnfaa 4 s.rtlrr sst si.' G. Herring e,al
This case was ti,d iU December last. IN Fart ol
tho Supreme Circuit. before Justice i;hrnard; ne result
Of tE, t-l b..n- d,a- ecincit ~ Tie lr3 Ine 'Se
came uu for rctll nl ThuIdy last anu, after beng
opcncd was Adjourned over 20 Monday aud was yester
! day submitted 20 Tie Jury. 49,.
alleges I.i ht was induced 60 buy from dcltWiants o
safa u.'-Irg chos fr the purpose Of h7 business az
bI,r i St,.iu Illinois, il thCir itptc -thtOn ana
warranty hat ti' sfe iltC, aId tic chest burglar
rioof ,hat saturday night, August =, ls4r IN" SAFE
aud ,l,, were opened by bulsar-. and $Gi5 ia mOucy
coin ,oturiC5 taken th,ltifOin, and that this occur
rcd through tlc WealLIes, and improper manufacture Oi
t'o eaf, ~ therefore Grf'dgnts Tor his loss.
Tho Court Zoe charging the Juy. dit'r urging them N
be- % gree and addins to the undi puicd tacts ia
ihc ease .lid n substance, that the warranty as 10 tg
must br confined 10 the chest; that TIE
i-suo of hu ease depended uuon the nature ~ the cove
between thc persons 70 the ic ~ SAFE lhai Iylne
ro al 1Gscaf bus did not n@k ior and Obtain
au express warranty cciv" voluntary ono, he had
u0 acun.l the seller; i tho rflc Wclc ohrrNe,
uo iuesg could br dome, t.lo Noull be list Oi
action in relation tD almost Ctc} hdiEuhi tt dl!efcncc
hc.HJcn simple representation and warranty is mat inc
latter is statement mgdc portion ot au ayr cmcht
That causes or effects L" n - you 20 sy from INC
evidence Wloihcr there Wdrautcc IN tins case II
there was plaintiff rutitcd 10 recover the difference IN
,ana between thc article. purchased ana The value OF tho
ONES represented II they were warranted ana known 10
Inadequate by The wsTIuur plaintiff can recover the
whole amount Of his loss iu addition "a such amount ~
I ynu deem ft under tho C!rcum stances.
Tho Jury then directed 10 bring In sealed Nefdct
! this morning.
- judge Idmuuds ana & VI. J.. Barlow Tor plaintiff
JamcsN W Gerard. a. A. NASH. and Mr. Ne,dlam FOR dc
] PENDANTS.
I