The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-07-01
SUPREME couaT-asNeaAl TERM.

Closing Of Business Of tho Term.
before Judges Ingraham, Barnard and Cardozo.
YAs Court concluded Yesterday the business OF the
serm. having disposed OF all eases the months
calendar that were ready. An unusual amount Of
BUSINESS has been transacted by the Court thus far
shls year. there having been heard and decided $40
Sases, Of which lao came up In the January term,
sixteen in the February TERM eghty.sx In the April
term and 100 IN The June term. The Court adjourned
- the 18th or July to render decisions.
Ddrtd Fl. Lorf,z vs. George A. Bucknoham.-In
this case, which s the only one in the list OF de.
sAs3ons accompanied by opinion, and In fact the
say one possessing points OF special puoc interest,"
The previous judgment was reversed and JUDGMENT
eraered for plaint,n on demurrer, with leave to de-
tcAdant to answer on payment Of costs. 3udg,
hgraham gives the opinion. The defendant, the
Swner OF lot In Greenwood Cemetery, conveyed
TIE same to plaintiff py an absolute conveyance
The plaintiff executed at the same time to the de-
1endant an instrument In writing, and agreeing to
resenvey the same to the defendant on repayment
70 him OF the consideration money, with
l.terest, In one year. de Also gave to the
svins Seen repaid The plann treas sei it as
closure Of It, The defendant demurred to the conl-
plant upon the ground that the same did not state
hcts sufficient to constitute q course of action.
l1dgment was given IN favor OF the demurrer.
Inere can be no doubt, the Judge goes on to say.
ment which the defendant has q right to execute
and which the platinum might accept. 1t was good
eonsderaten and transferred the title to the lot to
the deieasance executed Dy the plaintiff
81 the same time. in which he agreed
certain amount. with interest, vitates the convey
aace. He holds that the owner had The right to
grant the lot absolutely and That under the two in
straments referred to he might have sustained an
action tor strict foreclosure and thereby Obtained
perfect title, and that such a decree or judgment
would not nave required any execution To enforce 1t
And would not have come Within the prohlbiuon OF
the Statute, which provides that the plots, wnen
conveyed to individuals, VIII not be liable to be sold
On execution or 10 be applied to the payment OF
oebts by assignment under any lnsolvent law. 1t
was not therefore. an execution or insolvent pro-
seeding. He reversed the decision OF the Court be-
low.
Statute Of Limitations.
George c. Peters ct al u.s. John r. Deaap,ane ct
al-Jonn F. Delapaine IN 1852 contracted to sell
John K Peters, for $50 900, certain lots In this city
On the day fixed for the completion OF the contract
me wife OF Deaplaine refused to join in the deeds.
Mr.. Delaplaine died In 1854, and his wife in 1886
and Mr.. Peters in 1858. In March, 1869, after the
aeath Of all the original parties and seventeen years
aer the making OF the contract the representatives
Of Mr.. Peters sued the heirs OF Mr. Delaplaine for
specific peri Torrance Of contract the property hav
ing meantime risen TO the value OF $500 900. In the
Court Deiow the defendants claimed that the
statute limitations mad now dismissed the COM
plant The pla ntn appealed and urged two points
nrst, that the action by the Code was one upon q
sealed instrument, and. secondly, that the right Of
action did accrue till Mrs. lDelaplane,s death.
The defence urged that the action was not within
che meaning OF the section OF the Code TO which
reference was made. and that It not upon
sealed instrument, but for failure to perform
act and within section intended TO cover all actions
N which time OF Limitation Is ten years, and That
cause OF action accrued Immediately on failure to
perform contract. After listening to the argument
and appeal yesterday the Court at once announced
Ms declslon-an affirmation or the decision OF the
Dourt below.