New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-07-11
THE COURTS.
CIVIL.

ceased) against William Steinway was resumed before
Judge Gilbert OF the Kings County Supreme Court in
Special Term, Yesterday morning. The action WA
brought ey Gr in 81 her
rectIon as alleged, Of William steinway the defendant
against her will Jacob Zeiger and wife, relatives TIA
lfgants were called as witnesses and testified that whs
on visit TO Brunswick III June, 1866 tney found the
Tesnect THESE were the only examined aad
after summing up OF counsel the case was submitted 70
the Court. The decision is reserved.
The case of Mary Ann Smith was decided In
the supreme Court Chambers yesterday. In this case
Mary Ann Smith has been placed by her iatner IN tho
House Of the Good shepherd aeenns az i Vn the
Tor her liberation is the pastor OF the MetnOdst Church
sne md that the sole ground Of her eonnenen,
her change Of religious views Judge outheIlahd an
EASEMENT he must remand her TO her fathers custody
Counsel the petitioner said they should appeal Dy Ger
aDnea the RESPONDENT be forbidden take her from The
jurisdiction OF the Court Judge Suterand hed that he
had no power TO make such an ORDER
The following decisions were rendered yester-
BY SrTHFRiASD J-strener &c al agt. scbwertzer Fl
Writ dismissed and prisoner remanded TO custody.
BY 0ARDozo J-@Burke agt Bushe ct al; motion de-
i'm $3.50 Muter agt Anderson ct all attachment TO ISSUE
bail in $3.50 Schulz ct al agt Batter et az mG,on de-
Med Citizens Mutual Loan Association agt statz In
ton Granted on payment OF COSTS &c. D0ucet ag Stein
berger; motion granted. Alexander agt. Zee attach
ment issue, bail IN $3.50. Palmer aSI HeaH et Az
order granted without prejudice, &c Bates agt Van
BenschOten ct al order granted farIeh az" heHy;
motion granted
In the Superior Court, General Term, the
case of Elizabeth Unger agt. the Forty secoudst and
Grandst Ferry Railroad Company, lhV0NlnH the TO
sponsibilty OF railroad companies has been decided,
H,dee Homes delivering the opinion OF the Court This
an action to recover damages Tor injuries receiver w he
plaintiff as alleged through the negligence OF DEFENDANT
and s Servants The Injuries caused by span Of
horses belonging to the defendant when had become
detached from one of cars had away, and whs
running away, had knocked down and run over tbs
plaintiff The horses were attached to the car ny an
iron hook The having stopped 10 take 10 Two lAde
two dsOrdeTly persons passing by at the lme one OF
them hit the horses the head causing tnSn 70 PACK
against the dashboard raise up their legs ana ted tae
E6iaetree ont of the hook While this was going on the
other seized Of tho rens aud pulled IL Out 81 the
milling the other rein out of the drivers hands. The
rens not fastened together at the emu put tns
evidence on the question as ~hetner 'as Was
negligent omission or not. There was some testimony
given that the particular atacnnsn' M S ii,s
was defective The jury rendered VellGt loI Piinth
OF 5000 Defendant moved for new trlal, whcn was
granted Plaintiff appealed from the oIder Granting =
trial, and Justice Jones mas arheu io Viusi WIN
Goyrecfion.-The case Of William Cole and
others act the SeeOnd.ave Railroad Company,
poneosS printed in our columns yesterday The plain.
tin represents eight OF the nine original grantees OF the
city OF franchise OF building the secondaye Railroad
The grantees formed the Company and were Directors,
and majority OF the Board OF Directors. In NoVember.
1855 they transferred TO the Company the rancse which
a. Directors they accepted at price OF s20o; but this
resolution was shortly after rescnded In March, 1885,
new effort was made To pay the grantees the S2O00
which foIrdays afer was again resciIded In December,
1851 this suit brought FOR the H0oO, ana referred
The referee found for the plaintiff and the General Term
f heSpreme Court reversed the decision. On appeal
the Court Of Appeals the decision Of the General Term
was sustained Judge Grover delivering the opinion OF
srs o order reversing The Indictment and orisFns n,,
trial made by General Term Of toe Supreme Court hiih vas MAJ.
poa questions Of law and fact The code seeuon 20 males %.
duty Of this Court upon the appeal tleToT I me ayst
plaintiffs and their assgnor te MAYOR and Co7moa Csla
Mihau act sharp Y 6 snd cited The graft or eso.
by he grantees bat by tie corporation deie8dsu
relative the construction Of railroads IN cities laws o. ~. ~
makes valid s1ch grants Only 10 n,ot 81 'lea pt'' -
lHe.r- assigns as have Constructed we Igaa "a NAos
tnqe tge us o. tLe iG-i up s otef ,pr at I'D lie ri
could their benefit The art no, hayag oeea mat 70 -
would benefit unless they had become ne agnees
ssu sb SsaS is va. probably ,6e case and bal rot
determine o. The question ID t.e case Is sup T,s'l '.e
thereon Tor which the referee gave judgment in their favor We
SHS ' pod and eoamsse he construction Of the fos "a.
plaintiffs and their assgaor bad not any grant license o. ran
erp purpose conducting and operating this oad upon the route
required by the city uyOa making grant vlb th'
grantees agreed sOd With which they sere bound 20 esrp s
the company grantees, and these OsO,sd
civ considered valid Money necessary equip
.sad . ssa for H e.: ps g sa SsS i s '
yiuss either and that they could sIae ID.
20 IS' nreSeubed by them is possibs but hardly sup
possible That the directors acting directors ard ePPos
individuals binding tue Company to purchase he An' qrn Y.
cogr Buzz, ait ward september Term 1881 II they
directors make contract go upon the Company he eold
bind the Company them specified
sum for their grant right this follows that the sapeme Cour
were reversing Judgment Of tie Referee for Tat neat
ouy be sustained the ground that tns majority o. d
being grantees bound the Company them a Their asss
grantees to pay the purchase price q their grant also
OF limitations bar 10 The painirs oa
The grantees 81 The the Company thaa
81 wears before this action That
uuler seal and IL claimed by the counsel Tor TIE
plaintiff that this brings tie within the Limitation o. twenty years.
o. actions
scale Instruments upou tbs
uut That d the Company pay The
pantfs OF uees anything The the promise Of
the Company express Implied consideration Of the CONVEX
falls within the Inhalation IL i also GAINED
that passed BY the Board within s!K yer before The CON
meucemeu acknowledging debt 70 the plaintiffs and H
asgnees $4,000 for tie takes the out u the static
this that majority Of the Board passing the re a
grantees aud that they could not directors buy The grant
themselves for the Company they cannot create revive OF continue.
the themselves by resolutions dre
that the Company repudate the acts Of ne
purchasing Of themselves oT the Company iA
The this that tie plaintiffs have
uanent Their claim based ca
validity e Of the directors sad ss
Judgment Of the referee based upon that only These acts beng
valid Judgment rightly reversed aud TIE order appealed hH
be affirmed with costs and Judgment asa gGea asas 20
plaintiffs