New-York tribune., 1867-03-28


SUPREME T-CHAMBERs-BefOr Justice f. ID
SMITH.
DECISIONS. -
Wilson agt BlaggeMotion granted, with $40 COSTS and
Paine ast ireiand-Motion granted, with $40 costa
Irwin agt Trask-Judgment for plaintiff. -.
Baxter agt Dayis-Judgment aud execution SET as'da
Before Justice ISGRAHAM.
Smith agt Tallman-0rder for examination OF Wis
vacated.
COURT OF APPEAIS-MARCH 27.
TAXES on COMMERCE-THE TAX on NEW-YoRk
BRoKERs-THE UNITED STATES AND erAfhS
The People &C., ast Money.
This case, which in IT'S stages through the courts Of
this district has been duly reported has now reached ie
final stage in the Court of Appeals The case arose @
der the Law Of the last session OF the state
imposing tax the sales Of imported goods W Drokets
and making distinction in favor Of those imported from
beyond the Cape Of Good Hope. The law was at once
the grounds on which the Court OF Appeals has decided
viz it in reality tax on regulation OF foreign
der it's Constitution exclusive control The case as one
of public importance obtained ans mas hoM
delivering the opinion, Of which the following sum
The act does not contravene any Of the provisions Of
the Constitution OF the State of New York. but IN con
states, so far as It imposed duty on importers It r'
effect upon the importer on the sale OF his iporta
have been imported for sale until the Importer has either
sold them or divided them into smaller quantities by
bsracter Of importaton which subjected them dutes
under the laws OF the United States after they have
passed into the Of general property by beng SOLD
by the importer either for consumption or resale tney
may be taxed is other property but the sale Dy
broker for the importer is in effect sale by te Importer
himself Until such sale ia made the articles retain
their character imports II the packages In when tney
imported remain the same There can DC no uoup
of the right impose tax brokers as engaged IN
ayocaton in the state but the tax imposed Dy tna
act is upon the avocatOn but upon Inercnahdise
whether such has lost such still retain the char
acter Of an import and the Constitution OF the Uniteo
States prohibits State taxation on the latter.
Mr. Justice Hunt dssented Mr.. Justice Parker concur
ring with him -
Beas EIeutcr &c. sg The Home te Insurance Compas,
The plaintiff q decedent insured bis premises with
the defendant for $1,000 and IN some otner lsuranSe
Companies the further extent OF $4,000 In the appl
d saiSn f2T & ms snSeatop Contains clause that the sur
vey and description shall be deemed and taken 10 pe
part and portion of such policy and Warranty or Ie paI
~ the asslredD The premises really included modern
dining saloon attached to the premises ana worth s
but the plaintiff offered TO show that the application ws
really made out by the agent of the Company who told
the deceased that all correct upon when ne sgne1
previous decision The policy also contained the usual
reference the conditions aud one of these conditions
Companies made an offer TO rebuild but the painnn.
without accepting, rebuilt himself The Conrt % Deiow
nonsuted. Two questions, with one OF two minor
points, were argued this the fifth trial OF the
case First whether tne acu0n M M % Tnsnv one nre
venting them from setting up the warranty as ne keW
the state the premises and had misled the palntI
and ON this point contended that in the case relied
on below there had been express clause III tue appca
ton excepting any claim on such account and second.
whether the condition attached TO the policy as to re-
brdine was not 80 repugan the promise TO pay the
loss IN the policy itself 20 he void, even granting
that II had some effect whether it not mere mods
OF payment and il good did not preclude all Judgment
10 The plaintiff but like other tenders Kept gOOd, cut OH
merely interests and costs.
For the third time case the Court took the pa
pers, reseryiHg its decision. - 49, :, o..
John ii. Reynolds for plaintiff, appellant l. H. ouonB
for defendant respondent.
CASE SUBMITTED. .
William H. Baskin. executor, agt. Stephen Baskm
ct al.-Submitted for respondent.
WHAT is A PLEDGE
Jmes Lewis sgt Heury aud others Executors OF Joseph
Nanum
This is an appeal from judgment Of the court be
low in favor Of the defendants. 80.
on the OF May. 1S45, Brown, then living " iii
nois being indebted How, ana also 10 swift tufi'
burt gave each his pTOsory noteor the amount due
them respe ctively payable u months IRON tnat uy ana
OF canal scrip OF the state OF ILLINOIS,
then valued at IS cents per dollar collateral security
declaring IN his certificate ana trsef
that n the notes were paid at maturity, or within 80
days thereafter, said How was fuy authorized 10 se
the scrip and apply the ayas thereof pro rata 10 tne
payment OF the notes, and taking 1fom salo how
receipt for the scrip stating the terms O the deposit ana
that II the notes not paid or before maturity OF
within days thereafter the scrip was 10 Dc SOFA AT %
market price, and the ayails thereof applied PRO raa
as above In June, 1896 Brown delivered 10 How Two
certificates for S32 so each with interest AT SIX per
cent per annum which paid by installments. BOW
sold the securities 70 the delenuant tes
taor without the notes IL is claimed that Brown was
then indebted 10 him in 200. On May 3, leio var
sold the securies and purchased them IN 1o sO 01
January, 1884, Brown offered 10 pay the notes ana
demanded the securities. These were reused ana ho
transferred his claims plaintiff and brought suit for an
accounting The plaintiff in this SUIT claims tnat tho
transaction pledge, and he had right. at any time
before demand by the pledgee 10 redeem Sucn peugs'
The defendant claims that it special agreement
and under IL he had right to sell within 80 days ater
| the notes fell due Decision reserved .
Mr. Fessenden for appellant MI Allen lor respondent