New-York tribune., 1868-10-14

~ jr Homer RaUsdcG John Hit", C1nn,nan iIeury
John Carson. Cbas. G.. sissOII o. W. W. ~ I'van
Thompson, William i. skidmorr, George NJ D'o'
The railroad reports show the following facts III reier
ex6e to their earnings:
Niehtgon Central: .,,.o.,,,oc, e,o,,.,
boek Island ,,o..,,oe- .,.,s,o
TIL following shows the totals Of the average Of the
radtng items of the philadelphia banks
sSs 5s s S''ai$a * he *l2sT4 Z, ~
rsSosi........... sso. ssiss Sss,S3 Dre $40
Ve give below the udghent in tine Of Currie Mar
ana Co. agt Cumbt rlaud G. White which was tried IN
February last and which attracted considerable ateh
tSn oil the II is IN opposition Ia the generally re-
eelyed theory Of puts aud, should it be sustained Oh
appeal will make material change in business so lar rs
they concerned:
suFRRtOR COURT-SPECIAL TRBM-FEBRUA AIRY .l@sJoSfsJ'
Ga tn 18TH of FeOrusry. 1861 CuIrle, haIun q -"
at l2s payable and deliverable, sellers ol49h u
tsg the year 1867, with the usual rsht to Gih lof %
tract deposits were made in the u 3 Trust 20, W. nr
snoGn mn oi So by ga eh psryd oe cash e iTdend Of A
share upon them capital stock as A. SUI ~ 0r,obor
isoY' another cash dividend Of 8 share upon
the same amount Of capital stock Ihese dvut.T' W. MN,
,aid to The other holders Of its stock PhntnS cl&h
that i'm hpril r67 the H. r. K Co. Increased thelr capi
tai stock 10y doubling IT, aud that tue okS ol W.
nony we're oponed for subscriptions to the addltl9nal
stock the transfer books beg closed therefor on tue IO.h
Aav OF April and the stockholders ON that date nlng en-
ftle To their proportion up io the 18TH day
Of AprR payment the rate OF $50 per share To- oc made
ssr the stock mstalments payable from the time OF
sshscrbirg 10 The 18th day Of October when fupaid
.foek should e issued Stockholders failing to euScrlOe
hy tho t5h Of April lost then nghts, ana tOse Nh" N
si,ed nirt receive fun stock on that dav by paying so
,er share at the Of subscribing. ON me
a uotjee received by him the 10Th between
and o'clock, hat they elected 10 subscribe iVr o
i.c isth Of December while gave uotce of delivery on
She 18Th, and on The 1911 presented h TOT 1 S sSs wi
s.nn9er lie handed Mr. Marin b' the COPY o.
wlcn Is given above. Nj. Martin asked hlg If he would
not take cash avneHds; he replied tha Ire would
HMr. Martin would ndorse ms oerncaies lh te lrus
COMPANY Mr. Martin then handed hun two papers one
csciiug e. accept the l,e0 shares OF STOCK ana pay
s844 42l S therefor and demanding the ca'h nlnehas
sercon and iuterst and She otAer requiring Mr White
to deliver he portion Of new issue OF s0ck belong
ng 20 tho 100 shares, and tending 500 tne
pree ~ which said new stock was Issued ana
demanding the cash dividends on the new STOCK.
Mr. White tAen stepped 10 tle Wlhoo"' V ItaI u' wv
plcrs and remarked 20 Mr.. Martin that ne d not know
tAe eject Of the two ppcTS bat wond eS,aIl ms aNr
and return He then lei iahg win nun the stoch
At e interview Of the i9ib, defendant wien he entered
the Office bad the eerhc'tes oi Slo.k ih T lau @ Du
did take them ont again while m the Office There
tender 81 The stock OF demand 81 payment unsSs
the presentation of the hill be regarded as such tender
ard demand. MI Martin st tls Interview, drew check
Tor si3i44 Is, bat the check was not certified nor Wa
oArR rendered tO defendant ahOuAhlt was all ready
70 be delivered before he left. On the 3lst Of
dnrrie. Martin Co. sent to White letter stating ihai
their checks for $32 S5 and S622 had been ready
Their offers. tenders, and notices Of that date With ts
letter thJ sent the two che 10 nncerlfu lhe h,sSen
he would get them certified II that was required
wsnld eifer the s"cR The defendant read the letter
and looked at tho checks, and told the messenger that
he would lei him know shortly that lie would his
lawyer aud stop IN at plaintiffs office. II il IN proof
thai the l9tR day of Dec 1867, the STOCK was worth
Sl92I: on the st OF Dec 1851 sl3ls and sh of
Ee6 1866 tl4o. The tral took place after Sth OF feb
Is6s.
clt trrdo a
the vgue OF 900 O the alleged additional -hafes
be paid therefor and g. The difference between
the value OF the 1000 shares lnenOned lu lie cOhdc
Oh the Sth o February, 1905 and the contrct lIce a
interest. The defendant contests all these claims and
himself claims the difference between the contract pce
rketable value December 10, 1861. with interest
thereon As to the plaintiffs claims. the first two ev
IDENTIFY depend on whether ie contract WAS executed or
execut0ly; that as whether 1t operated as an
actual and present sale, or only as an agree
ent sell to be carried INTO effect Oh future day
One 10y making contract whereby he agrees 10 SELL
ibereby deprive himself Of any profit, which may have
accrued hererom, advantage which may arise from
possession or u-e during that year; nor DO such
profits aud advantages pass TO the purehasef III lhe az
seHce OF an express contract that they shall pass IL
then the contract IN question Is exeetoy ana renneS
nnryorued uuf after the dividends were declared aud
it, additional stock issued the platis dr. mo- sn
determine whether contract II executed OF
but IN this ease, whatever doubts may nave hu eiD
81 AZ resi- by The case of Kelly ag Upton decidu Dy
tic General Term Of this Court t5 Duer $50 WLlcn "
direct authority IN pOilt, ana heeoruinS IN, s W.
AN
10 be done execute IL until Dec 49, lS67 long
after the dividends declared aud the aduitlona
results that the FIRST two Claims OF pam
tifs must be disallowed The third claim J. founded on
ueastlre Of damages This defendant, II haOc W all j. so
for simple breach of contract 10 denver CERTAIN elOth
the yepdee not having paid to him Tie puIctselOhey
in advance such the measure OF damage Tue
difference between the contract price OF the articles
agreed 70 be sold and their market price on the
day OF the breach. This difference the plain
fIts would be entitled 10 recover. IL therefore
becomes necessary 10 ascertain whether the deIeuah
bruke his contract II whe and the market value OF
The stock the day OF the breach II there has Deen
defendant occurred eltner on he Vh OF
sst Decenber 1861 AS the market value OF the STOCK
ulaints even II there breach by defendant, SUI
Tered actual damage IL therefore unnecessary IN
tuis view TO consider whether there was such breach
u defendants claim. This rests on the deIenuahts
allegation that there breach Of the contract on
p!atlfs' part on the 18Th Of December To establish
and was ready and offered deliver the stock but PLAIN
fl1s' neglected TO receive 1t ana pay lOf IT, A.
sumng that handing Exhibit II, the STOCK being III
his possession sufficient tender. ana sucieil l
dcstiOn plaintiffs Of his readiness aud ability then ahd
thCe 10 fu contract yet the effect O II was dohe
away by Lis subsequent acts the interviews Tor
after plaintiffs handed him Exhibits ana h he clearly
Withdrew HE previous tender, ana decidIed hluisei bot
ready then 10 fulfill bis contract by saying that lie de-
sired time consult his lawyer and would return
shortly and thereupOn departing with the stock IN ms
pussesou Tie result arrived az that neither party
has claim against the other for damages aflshg Oat o
breach OF the question, and that each party
H. entitled return Of the deposit made Dy h WIN
thereon. The ls oue IN which each parry
should pay his own costs.
pANEYNG Ann NANCTAI