New-York tribune., 1868-03-25
THE COURTS.
THE CIVIL COURTS.
servant,

VIM. C.. Choate, esq, OF cOunsel for the uoH-
yesterday Ills argument occupied nearly two days
The Judge will charge the jury this morning
In the United States District Court yester-
f. r. barrels do. on Pier No. \. r. and barrels do
corner of Jackson and Monroests were condemned Dy
default
The argument in the case of Fish jr., against
the Chicago Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company
and other against the same defendants was
took the papers, reserying decision.
Mr.. Bergman sued Mr.. Schwartz in the Su-
preme Court TO recover the proceeds of policy OF IN
had assigned TO Mr.. Bergman By the intesate ana
the was clearly proved but st the ts ee one me
possible. lie neglected to do So and at the
time OF his DEATH the document was still unstamped
subsequently placed the proper stamp on IT,
The defendant raised the point that no person but the
had authorized any to put that power was re-
yOked by his death, and hence the Instrument was void
Judge Morgan thought the question doubtful enough 70
send IL 10 the General Term and directed verdict for
the plaintiff subject 10 the opinion OF the General Ierin
John Sedgwck, assignee of Andrew Beiser
bankrupt brought suit in the United states District
Court agdinst VIM Menck aud Charles T. BOstwck re-
ceiver Belser had been adjudicated bankrupt. and
now alleges that some time before Beiser declared
bankrupt he made fraudulent assignment OF ABOUT
worth OF his property under cover OF payment OF
fictitious debts that subsequently, Charles H. Bostwck
claiming to act in behalf OF certain creditors c9neheea m
the assignment aside. Boswick recovered Judgment
bnt appeal was taken and is s pending. Mr. sedgwck
obtained an Injunction restraining Beiser, Menck. and
Bostwick from proceeding further. the ground that
there is couson between them 10 defraud the rshtful
creditors whom he (lr Sedgwick represents in order
that he may to discover and become pos
sessod OF the bankrupts property subsequent motion
10 dissolve modify this injunction was denied
The case of Doupe agt. Genin in the Supe-
nor Court Trial term presents new question et r; M
house for business purposes In January 1867 the upper
part Of the house was greatly damaged Dy re put Will
floor but Mr. Genn delaying TO repair the burnt portion
the water leaked through the roof damaging Mr Doupes
IA tot Tho afonfI hp Of
up. measure his business, for which he claims iur
ter damages. As landlord is not bound TO repair with
ont an express covenant the defendant could not be
charged in that capacity but the Court held that reta
and such liable for the effects Of any negligent use Of
his premises whereby his neiehb0r was injured unless e
from recovering The Court further held the defendant
negligent unles, he commenced the repairs OF me IoOI
AS soon as OF ordinary prudence would have done
So and prosecuted them with all the energy such per
would prosecute them. Under TINS rullng tue jury
found a verdict for the plaintiff for $500
Judge Barrett of the Common Pleas has just
decided the OF Harry agt Howard, INVOLVING new
and important question of practice The defendant ap
the Clerk OF the City and County of New-York 70 mark
the OF the Judgment in this action. in his office
entered upon the direction OF single Justice in tho
Marine Court and an appeal was taken 10y defendant 10
the General Term which is now pending. The appeal
perfected IN the usual manner and aferwaru pan
I'm t 5a G s n e @oTny CLERKS oe
by force of Section s. of the Code the Judgment be
in his county; aud defendant desiring TO sell
mortgage certain OF his real estate made this motion
Plaintiffs counsel insisted that the Common Pleas
had power TO grant the motion, az II was
not "the Court I'm which the Judgment was reeovered'
that the application should have been made 10 the
Marine Court and the Common Pleas, having no COM
mon lawriRht make the order, the power conferred
upon by statute must be exercised II at ALL IN strict
accordance with the letter OF the law That at most the
motion should only be granted terms and as planths
counsel had not excepted to examined defendants
the appeal because OF his reliance the de-
fendants real estate, he should now be allowed 20 eN
anime such sureties Defendants counsel insisted that
this Court had the power TO grant the motion because
upon the filing OF the transcript and tho docketing OF
the Judgment In the County Clerks Office It became
Judgment OF the Common Pleas. The intent and mean
ing Of the statute that after such filing and docket
Ing the Judgment should IN all proceedings, except "a 10
the bearing and decision Of appeal in the Marine
Court been deemed to have bcen and treated as though
It actually had been recovered In this Court,
the time for questioning the sueieney OF defend
ants sureties had long since passed Judge Barrett
treated judgment recovered in this Court so far as
routine OF proceedings, direct collateral which result
from appeal We have repeatedly stayed proceedings
upon appeal from the SPECIAL to the General Term oI
the Marine Court upon terms, and THINK inc present
application Is within the scope and spirit OF the act AS
the plaintiff may have relied upon the real estate ana
for that failed to except 10 the suretie the terms
suggested are reasonable. Motion granted, upon the
suetes In the undertaking attending at the Chambers OF
this Court upon two days notice 10 plaintins attorney
aud justifylDg as upon an ordinary Justification