The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-14
SUPREME C0uRT-GsNERkL TENN.
The Statute of Limitations Cas-

The Statute of Limitations Case.
Before Judges Ingraham, Cardozo and Barnard.
Captain Gretan u.s. A. a. Selocer.-ln TINS case,
which will be remembered as suit TO recover on
drafts accepted by the paintitr part payment for
the bark Carlisle and cargo sold In San Francisco,
In 1851, py the plaintiff exceptions are taken by the
attendants counsel to some editorial comments on
the same published in last Fridays HERALD The
basis OF these exceptions IL the report of the referee
whose decision was lately alarmed by this Court,
the opinion OF Judge CardOzo, emDOdying the views
OF the Court, being published IN full in the HERALD
of the preceding date. The decision OF the referee is
braces all the important findings of Iacr. In No
vember, $780, the firm Middleton Hood were
of John Middleton and John Nj. Hood. AT the same
time the firm Selover Co.. composed OF the de-
fendant and said John Middleton, were the owners
place. Tie plaintiff sold to Middleton & Hood
The bark Carlisle and It's cargo, for s2oSoo payable
Hood at thirty days, and $40, 900 be in the draft
OF Middleton d Hood on Selover ~ Co., at three
S Haoa and Tor o e o be
benefit OF Selover X Co., and Selover accepted the
draft fol the accommodation OF the plaintif About
December, 1851 the pia1ntln placed the acceptance
III the hands OF F. Argent 4 Co., bankers, In San
Francisco, as his agents, and as security FOR ad-
Hotel was burned down. The tre made Selover &
20. largely insolvent In June or that year Selover
left san Francisco and arrived IN this city In the fol-
lowing July, and here the plaintiff and informed
him OF the loss sustained by Seover d Co., and
thaC Argent n Co. were pressing them Tor pay
ment and wished the plaintiff TO consent to the
delivery by the latter of the acceptance TO Selover
u Co. on tneir paying some sum TO be agreed upon,
IN full settlement OF all claim or plaintiff against
Selover Co. The said acceptance was the only
liability that the defendant was ever under TO the
plaintiff, and that was jointly with Middleton, who
Is still living In October, 1851, Seover and Middle
ton dissolved partnership, and the latter became
responsible for all the deots Oh the firm. He
as wen as said Middleton, is discharged
from all liability to the plaintin, arising
out OF said acceptance and as matter OF fact that no
and the defendant, stated in the complaint; that
the defendant did not promise or agree TO pay TO
the plaintlff or Argent n Co., tile sum mentioned
In the complaint or any other sum, except as here
lnbefOre stated and did not promise to pay the re-
mainder taftcr paying Argent IL COL to the plain-
tlff 10y drafts TO be sent 10 him from
California, or IN any other way; and that
plaintiff did not deliver 70 the defendant an order
on Argent Il co. for the delivering to the defendant
of said acceptance, or OF any drafts, and that the
defendant did not pay to Argent & Co. $3.50 on
account OF any Indebtedness. He also found as
further matter Of fact that more than have
elapsed since any cause OF action set forth In the
complaint, accrued IN favor OF the plaintin against
the defendant Upon this state OF facts he gave
Judgment against the plaintiff This finding, as
above stated was confirmed by this Court. The
Court, however, IN its opinion given by Judge Car
dozO distinctly sets forth that 1.-THE statute OF liml
tatlOn Is defense the second cause OF action"
cause OF actonn- the PLAN and simple state
ment OF the showing the basis OF Its decision.
and upon which the HERALD editorial comments
were justly and properly based. however, there are
always TWO sides to law suit, and 1t is very lucky
there are were not for this dual character OF
legal controversies the occupation OF the "hnightS
OF the Green Bag like that OF Ohello would soon
be gone. Both sides are now given, which is only
fair ana just. Meantime In accordance with this
two-sided view, Captain Graham proposes TO carry
the case to the Court OF Appeals