The New York herald., 1872-11-16
HERALD SATURDAY NOVEMBER

ruptcy OF John N Bonesteel to reach certain stock
OF the Nicolson Pavement Company OF Brooklyn,
alleged to be in tue hands OF Mrs. Bone
steel, the banSrupps wife, as ner property,
when, In fact, 1t il the property OF
the bankrupt and should be surrendered or
The defence Of Mrs. Boncsteel was that the pave
ment company had assigned this stock to her In
CONSIDERATION oil her services in procuring the aid oi
ner inhuentiM friends III introducing this pave.
mcnt into use On the streets Of Brooklyn, and that
she did bring such aid to the company having,
among others, induced her brother -in-law-HOn. =.
i, Cnittenden-to take an interest in the matter,
ana at his own expense, TO put down trial biocR
OF the pavement iD front OF his own door. She also
averrcd that another consideration to her was that
her husDand-whO was President OF the company
when the suit was commenced-shOuld be em'
pOyed by the company, &c, at rcmu-
business he was then engaged In. The Court
ana the decree was in her favor 1t Is here in.
sisted on appeal that the assignment OF the STOCK
M was really IN consideration or the husoanas ser
wees, ana not OF the wife's, and that the courts
have not yet gone so far and ought not to go so
lar as to give q married woman the time, OF
services the skill, brains or muscle OF her nus
band, as will be done In this case II the decree oe-
low IL allowed to stand. The recent laws OF the
State of New York, it is urged, do not authorize a
protect ner in her own earnings and allow her 10
]. p. @. CotIrill for appellant appellees not ap-
pearlng.
No. 23s. Miller ct al. vs. People OF New York ct
al.-Error to Court OF Appeals Of the State OF New
York-Thls was an action In the nature OF a quo
,co,vantO brought by the Attorney General OF the
State of New York against the plaintiis In error,
who were alleged to have usurped the ofllce or
Directors OF the Rochester ana Genesee Valley
Railroad BY the act of 1851, amending the charter
of the city OF Rochester, authority was given the
Corporation, upon certain conditions to subscribe
for and become the owner OF 100000 OF the stock
Of the road in question, and 1t was provided that
in case the road decided to receive the subscription
the city should have power to nominate and appoint
director for every $4,000 OF the stock it held,
but should have no voice in the election OF the other
directors OF the company Of whom there were thir-
teen. The road elected to receive the subscription
of the city, and it was so made, and the provisions
OF the act were In other respects carried out SUB
scqnently, in 1857, the Legislature OF the state
passed an act amending the act OF 1851 by giving
the Common Council of Rochester authority TO APP
point one director 1or every $42,s 81 OF stock
owned by the city, the efiec. OF which was to
give the city power to appoint seven OF the thir-
teen directors. The stockholders, other than the
city, disregarded the amendment, and pro-
ceeded to elect the p.ainti1s in error directors,
at the next annual election; and the CITY,
In pursuance Oft, appointed seven directors. ihe
Court held that the election OF the plantif IN
error was irregular, and that the appointment by
the case might be brought up for final decision,
the Court OF Appeals affirmed the Judgment pro
Joanad, and it is here argued that the amendment
OF 1867 IS unconstitutional In that 1t impar5 the
obligation OF the contract authorized by the act OF
1851, and which had been consummated between
the parties thereto. The act authorizes the city to
appoint greater number OF directors than that
agreed upon ana assented to by the road at
the time the subscription was made, and, in
act. makes new contract for the road
without it's consent. In answer TO the position
assumed by the defendants in error, that the con-
tract was made with full knowledge OF the re-
served right OF the State to alter and amend the
charters Of each OF the contracting parties, 1t Is
said that they also had knowledge OF the limits of
legislative power and the restraints imposed by the
constitution ofthe United sta 'es, and that the OBJ
legations OF contracts are sacred and beyond the
reach of legislative action.
Theodore Bacon Tor plaintin in error; James
G. Cochrane for defendants in error.