Daily national Republican. (Washington City [D.C.]) 1870-1872, 1870-02-07

legitimate bunineali netther 10 that OF pro-
ductiva labor nor 20 that Of trade and oom-
meree, which consist IN the exchange Of con.
modlties, nor 10 any other business growing
out OF the necessities or eouvenienco Of 90
They possess not one rsdssminE quality Of
utility, but their Influence 10 only evil both
morally And materially.
New York, along with their aGiiations over
the whole country during the reeent LsV.i =,
lion, cost this Governs ent most probaoy y
least one year Of additional va asnesn,oas
liveaJ and their annual cost slnee tne eiose o.
the war 70 the fair and honest productive IN
dn.s,I o. the souS,sy, ~ ~ ~ iss.ts,, on
ai, n ny. III ! Vice Of monstrous sire and
costly support .na 91 San.it nsnr ~ onsl
law and an enemy 10 nouietyt
EntsTtsininr tkese visWsit IL with extreme
rslus,aess, .ad only because .s. We Eel con.
jurirdietlon in the present eontpoversy.
In May, 1905, these two plaintifs entered
into an agreement with the defendants that
the latter should sell short Erie stock for
them In the city Of New York, on q deposit
made, and 70 be kept up, Of 20 per cent on the
par value. Besldss the Joint deposit each Of
the plaintins had a separate deposit 10 his
own credit At the defendanis', and each agreed
that these separate deposits might be held By
the defendants a. security or margin 10 pro.
tset them from loss In carrying outthe agree
On the 10th Of January, 1850, the pisIatIfs
were informed, and the fact was 90, thatt hey
had been .eloaed outn The result Of the
vyhoie anon n 10 the ioist sssdit N the Main
tiffs had been abrofbsd BY the ioasss, and
there vas balance besldss due 70 the defend.
have : lien on the individuai credits Of these
p.ossd dI III Re si.t o. March. HspneIly, eas
shssI n favor 81 the Defendants for ei ,alT,
nut nrotsstsd AZ the time against the rlght on
me dsfsndants 70 olHim the payment on the
snntrset. n -
me other plalntinI, Ohamberiin, al the same
time had = IKE amount, 0i, aiT, 20 Ms Indi-
10 Sive them his check for ii Tor the samo
slisred rsason, defendants, however spnlied
hls monsy towards the payment Of heir
ne pr..sp, action was brourhtev H.pneIiy
and ORamberlln Jointly TO reoeVer those two
sums or money. and the only count Ia ths
dsSI.r,sSH y i0T ISnsy had and ,sSsysd
aetion eaanof Re maiataIned Ifthesa n rfiss
nave ri1ht 70 thsir money a. ali. n mu.s b.
on the Ground that IL was not liable TO any
10 the stock operations, and that ali their OIL
iiestionn mad Already been dlsohareed n
that were 80, II left each mans deposit TO be
And ! prayer 10 This etfsst was rr.nted nv
the court, subject, hoWSVsr, 20 4 onslInostion
which was wholly rspuGnant. That quailnoa.
whole svidsnoo the iurv shall fnd {hst ths
balance standing TO the credit OF OhamberiAIn
In his Individual aooount, was ~ him en-
earked a. mnrIia, and held as such b. the Dc.
understanding Of ali the parties, il which oaSe
said baianoe1s 70 be treated a. IN carried 10
the credit Of the plsintiHs in their stock
aoeount,n We think there was error IN thIs
oualifoatlon OF defendants, third PRAYER.
) II IL like the case OF two Joint borrower OF
monsY, each pledrinr separate property A.
ned, ths sSsdItor's lien l. Al an end. ana sssh
party Il sntitlsd TO have his own property re-
turned 10 hImI Joint action for the whole, or
rasS:t & q; ~ hare oould not 30 su..1
rejeetiuE the sih and eth OF defendants'
prayers. They are to the same point aud
idsaso ~, n ~, suS,.sn,s Ihs later y IN ths;e
sad uGdsI.taSdlnGly settled the s.cOgn, q
Ne loin. shoek AZ h.,san ~. ~ Paesehsea 70
bin y PAYNE ne e ~ oso nn9Mn 70 ee que;
sn,ttisd ~ ssso.ss .nn aenos,is 49, r.. NJ
an thst sseo1ntn " M"
M, We 40 nos Pesssss ths s1rotoi THIS prayer
40 ~ o,Sss rs2In1s ~ IN: ,o,,, h.,o,-
w. osn n,in ~, .hc eonts osIoW'
SoT, usls,, possibly in the qualiasstIon to the
a..Sa ~ .i,SI,. =, .Js.,,iaa s 70
si t ,s ui S 2. tns ,,.II. nsSe 70.
ssndants OK me siat 81 HsSsb ~ depsnd Sn SS,
the private views and purposes Of the plain-
tins, not communicated TO the defendants at
the time, or entering lnto the consideration Of
the settlement between them.
knowledge Of the facts In regard to disputed
trAnsAetion betWeen himself aud another per-
son, pAyl the latter a sum Of money In settle
mont win be bound by his act, uulesa there
have been fraud In the ease, even though such
other person be the depositary Of his funds
uhAtever may have been HE own secret mo.
uxes 10 making the settlement.
The ludgment below must be reversed, aud
new trial awarded. But unless the plain.
TINS ANAL % able 70 ssnblsh ~ other cyl
denoe thAn that when they produced ~ the
late trial Of the cause, the exiatenee OF joint
right 70 the money In dispute, . new trial
would hardly be p5ohtAble In the present COP.
dlton OF the pleadings and Issue.
John I. Roboy vs.. Robert Prout. Judge
Wylle delivered the opinion Of the court. "a
foiIoWa,
W., p..n. no,- d......a 80. ..i..a =, Al
,o,,n .antnahs $500 ~, VS. ~ ~ o.I w
: isass ~ n ~ az. Ionathsn Po,,.r ~ ~ =
t.,n ~ % vas,s s.nswshis forsysr t,n.t
a. M ~ IA hsnsnt ~ az ~. M.iIIan
Sits ~ vandosa Miiiion -. ~
s..i.rs ,..srvins. rsaf isax "a nn.ahls 80
ths nm Of Ann snnusIlv. 10 addifian ~ he
navmsnt ~ IN issaae ~ XII .s~s. ~. 80 N
M rsnt .Souid h m ms arrasr for th.' nsriad
~ siTtv days 80 No snfsaisnt narannti ~.
osstz iynnid ~ snnaS ~ ~ psI ~.
PNNty nohAa " w tho pNNmAhIu ANOm