New-York tribune., 1869-01-21
TEE couSEs.

CIVIL.
cuorce Court. General Tenn, before
IN the shherand and Barnard s - ys ~ tne ps,es ere
orce al an M 1856 tho husband believed he had ey
einddelity and went 70 lnelH.a Thepe tb az @ UU
ce nom his wife, the service OF tne summons
eSSdvSSTT~ publication subsequently Mrs Holman
s .u in Indiana 10 set ss9e % '9S s qeGTee aganS ms
ker SuS SussS on appeal for failure OF jurisdiction. MT
vas this decision in his favor having returned
HoSinsSork, married again. Mrs. Holman subsequently
t2Ne ed this suit which hasnOw been pending Tor some
conpa6e chief defense the Indiana divorce, but
npSiyorce the Referee held VOID, ana gave Judgmeut
~ nisintR who also obtained alimOny at $500 per
srum The aelenanS w. & anu oasion .i S1 tbs Val
ssesv n the Indiana divorce.
In the Superior Court, Special Term, in the
ose al WIN. Mckinley against the American Exchange
Snk the following opinion has been rendered by Judge
ScCunn. The opinion states the facts; -.
ms is an action for damages for defaclng note by
,e paying teller Of the bank writing on the face there
he words payment stopped" m pencil as an answer ~
demand for payment on the day IL became dqe; ~ -
admitted IN tho complaint that the writing NJ, ~
was made the day OF tho maturing OF the nGe. ay
evidence Is that the day previous to It's is2ebie
fact that that day he day 1t duel the t
te SSbSet 10 ali eones Me- whiting the face
did not IN any way change the condition OF 1o nor5 ~
thensument diminish its value IL was the FeCo % & O
fact which any purchaser mad right 10 know ana Ine
coneealment OF which II It had hOS S DSoN or snch
purchaser The writing Of the words payment stopped
on note payable at bank simply ahuouSVS H % not ba
applied To the payment of the paper and does not neoe
saiy discredt the note nor import that he Will not pIo
into consideration that the defendants bank merely
the agents Of the maker, and as such AGENTS s is
welestablshed rule Of law Again. the inaoisectsb t sb
pencil Of the words complained OF does en V % or de.
liability OF the maker and indOrser. Destroy ynS
facing written contract does not ansct Io tS note
the parties to it. Had tbs bank even uSs'io t ~ have
the remedy of the h5ldeF would not naNo
been SfFectsd in the isIghtest degree and ever even
then the remedy 5S @Ss to eae 6em to recover they
had only prove its destruction and Sonents ds 3 y
dbered to tbTonS6 All the books The instant payment
Of the note demanded and refuSed III was oshOh-
ored and every purchaser who took 1t after that te
took II subject as have said before TO all equities ex-
ing between the aneeedent parties ana maker IL was
Just valuable for the purposes OF assignments as II the
words were never written upon it. And the value OF
the instrument its assgnabhty was not affected by
age can only consist in giving notice to an intended pur
chaser that the maker had stopped its payment; Now
honesty would have required the plaintiff to disclose
to any purchaser that payment had been stopped
would be stretching the rule indeed to hold the defend
ant liable for giving note which common honesty re-
reason why this plaintiff cannot The plaintiffs
testimony is that ne purchased the note IN go9a e
the makers and indorsers who were upon his own show
continued so long after; and plaintiff not having ex-
hausted his remedy in this respect this action must ra
The whole theory IN favor Ot recovery in this case
would seem more ike broad Joke than serious srgu'
ment when You reflect that the plaintiff could have re-
moved the marks They were simply pencilmarEs. and
might nave been taken of in the easiest possible
If the defendant had his right to place them there,
the plaintiff clearly had right TO remove them
The plaintiff the Of Hattie Leland agt Taaferro
brought su 70 restrain the enforcement Of chattei
mortgage on furniture the ground that her purchase
OF the furniture and tho giving back OF the mortgage
were all parts Of agreement for the purpose OF keep
ing house Of prostitution and she to pay for the
furniture out Of the profits OF the business. An nunc
ton having been granted ex pare the case came up on
motion dissolve the injunction as 70 one defendant
Judge Barbour in his decision dlsregards the special
grounds urged that defendant but holds that admit
ting the plaintiffs statement TO be true, the sale and
mortgage were both probably void against public
policy hut under the in pari deteo poOr est con-
it0 defeRdee the Court will not aid either party TO
dsgraceu agreement either enfore prevent its
foreement Tho plaintiff he holds, under her own show
ing. has OF action.