New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-06-06
An IMPORTANT REAL ESTATE CASE.
THE TITLE OF VALUABLE PROPERTY IN LITI-
CATION.


A very important real estate case, involving
the tito 90 large amount OF valuable property In the
lower and also in tho upper part OF the city, came on
for final hearing yesterday In the United States Circuit
Court-In Equy-for the Southern District Of NewYOrk
The parties 20 the suit James Drake Alexander Klein
wort, and Edward Cohen plaintiffs, and Francis Good
ridge, William 8. Skldmore Caroline L. +. Randolph,
Smith Gift, Emma A. Gift, william L. LANG Eliz-
abeth Laing, Laura +. Randolph, William +. Randolph,
Franklin +. Randolph, Stuart +. Randolph, II. O.
+. Randolph. Mary c. Le Roy Goodrdge, Mary
Read Goodridge, Ezra Read Goodrdge, William H.
OF the City OF New-York. The seamen's Bank for sa
wings in the City OF New. York, William V. Brady
Henry A. Hurlbut, Uriah Hendricks, Montague Hen
bricks, Paschal W. Turney and Arthur W. Austin,
"a executors. &c. of Samuel d. Bradford deceased
This snit commenced the 18th OF January, 1863
and the plaintiffs ara partners In business In London
Prior to septep6eF 1851 they loaned aud advanced to
Ezra Il; Goodridge Franklin r Randolph and Francis
the sum OF over Ri2OO All OF these loans, made at
various tunes, matured subsequently TO October 1867
Ezra X. Goodrdge died on the goth Of August 1867.
Franklin r. Randolph died the 18th OF September,
1867. At the death Of these partners the defendant
on the day Of October, 1867 the plaRs commenced
action the supreme Court Of the state Of HewlOrk
against Francis GoOdrdge survivor TO recover
Of said loans tho amount OF sl52sO. On the 18TH OF
November, 1867, they commenced two actions In tue
tho further Of $4,000. At the time OF commencing
these actions attachments were duly allowed end
issued therein and OF lis pedes duly fled
and said attachments levied on the property de-
scribed In the bill OF complaint Judgment was per.
1904 and executions issued thereon. The said at
tachments Of lis pedens and Judgments tho
first attachments, notices aud judgments on file
record against Francis Goodrdge survivor OF the firm
The Sheriff made under the execution the sum OF 222 90
and then returned the executions with his certificate that
he could not flnd any other property IN his baliwck
belonging 20 the said Francis Goodrdge, as survivor
Thercupon the plaintiffs commenced this snlt In this Court
reach 1st The lease Of certain premises In Iroads
3D. certain real estate In Wast Sd certain aea estate
tho corner OF Br9adway ana H., y seS &c po "a;
way and Thirty the plaintiffs, in accordance
with the prayer in the bill applied to this Court Tor the
profits OF property and OF the property Itself and for
preliminary INJUNCTION against any interference there
the bill was matter OF fact eopartnersp property
aud, SUCH properly applicable to the payments OF the
stand in the OF all the members of the firm On the
hearing OF Tins application II was conceded that the lease
and the Wast property were c0partnership property
and therefore, the Court order made and entered
the 18th OF February 1868 ordered adudged and de
pointed Simon DE Wiser receiver Of the lease for the
benefit OF the plaintiffs, and appointed William l l.
property and directed the defendants in interest
TO execute an assignment OF me lease to
the said Skdmore and De WISER as receivers Such
ana deed have been e5eI h ana
property IA no longer In litigation Subsequently on the
o c the said smor sS be- vSy r
OF the rents income and profits OF the other prop
have received and paid into Court large amount Of
rents The up for hearing pleadings
aud proofs Testimony has been taken by both Sides
and that which not purely documentary has been
printed and will be handed 10 the Court The contro
versy arising tho Is two-fold: FirstAre the
premises In Newest aud Exchange-place, and at the
corners Of Thrtysecond and Thirythirdsts and Broad
way, copartnership propertyi And second--If So
what are the rights Of the plaintiffs In reference
thereto. The plaintiffs claim 70 have proved be-
fore tho examiner the record OF the judgments
in tho Supreme Court, which included attachments
issued at the dates alleged and the notices OF lis pdeS
with proof Of the filing OF the same at the dates alleged
the issuance and return OF the executions unsased as
alleged, and Judgment search which, plaintiffs claim
proved that the plaintiffs the first judgment creditors
The deaths OF Messrs GOOdridge and Randolph ad
mitted alleged The plaintiffs claim that there should
be final decree establishing: 1st That all the property
described the bill was cOpartnershp property, and
directing, I'd That 1t be conveyed 10 receiver. 3D.
That tho receiver sell TO any that may be willing TO
purchase, and bring the proceeds into Court lh That
out OF he proceeds the plaintiffs DO first paid the amounts
due their Judgments 9Th That the Trust Company,
IN which the accruing rents have been deposited pay
the same to the plaintiffs, their agent or their attorney
10 be applied on their Judgments 9Th That the pants
should be at liberty TO apply for further decree After
full argument these points the Court took tho Iapers
rcBeTVlg It's decision.