The New York herald., 1870-01-05
SUPREME COUaT-GeAeWAL Term.
Important to Bankers.


Before Judges ingraham, Barnard and Cardozo.
the 4Hlnd National Bank or Hartford ps. The
Fourth National Rank or the City Of Nelo York.
In this case the Florence Mills, Connecticut cor
pOrati0n, Kept an account with the defendants.
where their notes were frequently payable, averag-
ing In number about five per month from January
to April, 1865 and three from 1st 80 lOth Of April
or these one for $4,000 became payable the I'd OF
tnat month and for So 900 the 4th Of April the
following day being sunday. II appeared that the
corporation eferred TO mad balance to their credit
with the defendants OF &694 81 IN the "a OF Apr,
when the first note became due, which note de-
PENDANTS, as alleged. declined to paw but the
succeeding day received remittance from the
Florence Mills which placed them In funds exceed
ing $4,000. Tne draIE due on the "a oelng repre-
coming due on the 4th was NOT pad. The plaintlns
claimed that the remittance received by the
proceeds OF new note OF the florence Mills
corporation discounted by the plaintiffs, ana
OF the Florence mills upon their promise tbat the
proceeds would be appropriated by them to the pay
ment OF the note due 4th April; and tnat the
Florence mills RENTED the said proceeds in time
defendants, witnsuitaDie directions but that defend
ants enormously appropriated SAID proceeds to the
note ID April; that defendants receiving the
proceeds OF the draft received 1t charged with The
instructions as to its appropriation; that by their
letter OF acknowledgment they assumed the obiga-
ton to appropriate II, ana that not having done
tney are liane 10 the plaintiffs Tor the amount OF
the note So O00 The cause was tried before q
referee, VINO rendered judgment IN favor OF the
plaintiffs, from which decision appeal was taken.
ALer the arguments OF counsel yesterday the Court
Took the papers and reserved decision.
Disputed VIII Case.
Mdfy Vda Byunt rs. Annie C. Kerr et df.--This
was an appeal from the Surrogate's decision rerus-
ing probate to brief Will OF the plaintiffs deceased
husband 1t appeared that she was his second wife,
and there ALL ten children living, besides
son OF deceased child. The Will In one single
clause gave his whole property, valued at about
S52, 900, to his wife, and appointed her eXecutrix
The VIII was executed il Phi adelpha Where he then
was IN q very dangerous Sickness and was Witnessed
by his two attending doctors Megs and Wilson.
The dispute arose as 10 whether the formales OF
witnessing VIII were attended 70. DR.. Wilson
asked the sick man whether the signature to 1t was
his but It was not proved whether ne used the word
"will.n Dr. Meigs does not remember whether the
word .'wl, was used. Mrs. Van Brant ana another
person present or the word on direct exam
tnaLi0n but not quite sure on cross examination
The Surrogate rejected the VIII, and the widow ap.
peais. Ii was argued On her behalf that her VIII
nesses we're IN no way discredited, and that Just
Interpretation OF their testimony showed that all
cessary points OF execution had been complied with
On the other hand, IL contended that her own
testimony was taken against the policy OF the law,
and Without 10 the necessary facts were not made
out, and with It were 80 doubtful to justify tue
Surroxate's decision.
The uour: airrmed the decision or the Surrogate,