New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-02-19
THE COURTS.
SUPREME coURr-GrSrnA1 TERN DECISIONS
l'ark-rOw


Before Tngraham, p. D., Barnard and Brddy,
J. J.D,les OF Porters-The Amerean Bank Note Com.
pany agt Tracy r. Edison; Tracy H. Edison agt 41etedn
Wright 4 Edison. bank note engrayers, discovered
the ink which has since become so well known IN
the grecnbacks Edison procured from MN an M
OF his patent At that time there was but little cal Tor
after three months consideration, declined to pur
chase it Of him, preferring to stand IN regard to
1t the same basis as other companles-that OF
paying much per thousand impressions. subse-
qucntly the firm, with the other chief noteengrayng
firms united in the American Bank Note Company,
each throwing in all their machinery, and which was
named IN schedule when each pattheIsnp AZ, M
the means. machinery, &c, which was owned by each
establishment to the new company, me new phy
Tnvsty was then continued TO 1868 After that the
pany refused to pay more and commenced action TO
get back the money they had already paid, aud Mr.
Edison commenced a suit for his royalty
ON the trial before the referee OF the TWO suits
he held that Mr. EdsOns relations TO ms partners nade
his purchase of any OF the by which their business
couid be carried on purchase for their benefit and the
purchase therefor Injured to the benefit OF the company
Edison, and Mr.. Edison appealed Mr.; Justice Brady's
d. S aST sSes 9 S1 Ms holds
that the purchase by member OF the nrm Oh lDaeis
pertaining business of the firm not absolutely
void in favor Of the purchaser but 70 De e4nslueIeu
only exposing the member OF tle hri h VINO
account the profits That in this case 1t appeared DIS
tinctly that the firm had waived their rights, and the
never therefore, transferred by the partners to the
company With regard the transfer by Edison to the
est in the property belonging to the company.
Both judgments therefore reversed.
Liability Of acknowledgement agt ramsay edt.
This and large number Of other cases were brought
the same cause OF action The parties TO the suits
land Company, which failed Judgment was obtained
against Mr. Aspnwal, and on it he sued hisico-stock
holders contribution and obtained Judgments against
them. The defendants in those suits appealed claiming
that under the act 81 i1corpoTaton ne nor s
each other for contribution.
v1oip pfr mi ioun nepu
joint liability yet the reason rests on the equt
able principle, that common advantage IS TO be met by
common loss and there holding that stock
holders severaly liable are not Liable TO contribution, he
decides the defendants liable and airms the Judgment
In the case of Torrance however who, it appeared,
Vanderbilt and aerward being misled by Mr.. Ramsay,
assumed the stock but without having Is transferred in
and reverses the judgment OF the Court below.
Notice Of Protest through he Post. Omce-CtrH Wdr;-
Harden agt BOyce-The defendant IN this suit was the
OF note and resided in Greenyile South Caro-
lima The plaintiff sought TO give him notice OF protest
after civil had broken out and after the Pres
dents proclamation that the Southern States were In
state OF instruction, and that all communication be-
tween the of the sections unlawful. by
depositing the notice in the pOst-ofice directed
to the defendant at his place OF residence The Court
below held this notice good but the General Term Judge
Brady rendering the decision, denied that at that time
complete interruption OF communication had taken place
by the acts Of our own Government OF which the plain
tiff bound to take notice; that the Government was
bound to preserve the letters and forward them az the
earliest opportunity, but the defendant himself was
bound, at the earliest opportunity to renew his notice,
and in default OF proof Of his having done so the judg
ment must be reversed and new trial ordered.
Irregularities m The JluyrOOnl-SchdUner agt The Sec
Ondare Railroad Coin this case after the Jury had
retired they sent In TO the Judge for annuity table,
and the Judge sent them the Code opened at the little
annuity table contained in 1t, The Jury gave verdict
OF s. 200 for plaintiff and defendants, their appeal
raised the point among Others that this sending in of
annuity table irregular and vitiated the verdict,
being done without the defendants consent Judge Bra
dy. reviewing at great length the decisions TO commu
neaug the Jury matters after they had retired from
them draws the conclusion that where the document
municated could plainly have had effect their de-
cisOn and verdict Is sustained b. the evidence properly
before them the Court U not interfere on account OF
such tTngs rr6gularity; and then reviewing the CIR
cumstances OF the case accident holds that TINS
table did affect their decision, and all the other
exceptions were Oyerruled the argument atrms the
Judgment. -. -,
Hedrsay Erdenoe Shats agt. Lyon.-According to the
decision OF the Court below, the PLAINTIFFS VIE was
raped by the defendant, and she died from the injuries
therefrom The main testimony IN tho case was
the statement made 10y her to her husband party lnhe
datey after partly two days later put thee
was some COniirmaOIy testimony. Judge lngrahan CIV
ing the opinion OF the Court. grants new tra on ue
ground that the statements OF the wife not MADE he
datey after the occurrence were Improperly admitteJ
Judge Brady, however dissentcd, holding that sush
statements within the exception of tue law nauo
where the sufferer is the only possible Witness
and has died