The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-08-03
MARINE COURT.
A MOrtgagee's Priority OF Claim.
Do I'm

Before Judge Gross.
Frederick Krutlna Alexander T. Stewart ct
al.-In April, 1871, Augustus Hcino purchased from
plaintiff bill OF furniture, for which he paid part
cash. and for balance he gave his notes for $685. %,
secured by mortgage upon these goods, filed July
IS, 1871. Being indebted to defendants, suit was
instituted by defendants against HIM, and Judgment
obtained therein against Helno, on September 0,
1871, for $24 3d. and on October 7, 1871, execu-
ton was issued TO the Sheriff OF the city and county
of New York, directing him to make ont OF said Hell
nos property the amount OF said Judgment,
with COSTS &c. Under this execution the
Sheriff levied upon Heino's property, including
tin notified the Sheriff that he claimed the property
under the mortgage which fell due on January 4,
1872 On January 9, 1872, the defendants indemnlfed
the Sheriff, who sold the property January Is, 1872,
paid the claim OF A. T. stewart Il Co. and paid bal
ance, amounting to sllo, over to plaintiff This ac-
Co. the value Of the property taken by them. The
defendants claim that A. Heino was the owner Of
the property nd not pan nS that Hs aS
aud sale, and that such interest was sold
by Sheriff. 1t was also contended that inasmuch
as part Of plaintiffs claim had been paid ana n
part Of the property still remained, the defendants
were only Liable for damages equal TO the deficiency
remaining unpaid on the mortgage after selling the
property still remaining The Court decided that
upon default In the payment of the mortgage the
plaintiff became the sole owner OF the property and
that defendants were liable for the value thereof
$3.50. for which Judgment was entered against de-
PENDANTS Qess the $40 received by plaintiff from
| sheriff., together with costs.
Important to Brokers and Real Estate
Owners.
Before Justice Mcclure.
Moses Hertz VS.. William Henry Arnoux.-This ac
ton was brought to recover $s5, brokers' commits
sion for the alleged sale OF lot First avenue and
Forty-eIghth street, belonging to defendant. 1t
was alleged by plaintiff that the defendant gave
him some lots to sell on the corner Of First avenue
and Forty-eighth street; that he procured pur-
chaser who purchased five lots; that he had been
paid commissions on four lots, and that the COM
mission on the nth lot is still due and unpaid The
defendant alleged that he gave planti iOur lots to
sell, that when he brought the purchaser he told
him that he had another lot adjoining which
he would sell. After some bargaining Mr.. Murray
bought the whole five lots, and by agreement be-
the commission to the plaintiff for four lots, which
was DONE and that plaintir was not TO receive any
commission on the fifth lot on the other hand,
plaintiff testified that when defendant said he
would pay no commission for the sale Of the filth
lot he the plaintiff, expressly stated that he did
not care who paid the commissions but some one
must pay them. Upon this statement of facts the
defendant claimed that he was not liable, and made
motion to dismiss the complaint, which was de-
MED. The plaintiff insisted that i'm law there was
an implied liability on the part Of the defendant to
| pay the commission. The Judge reserved his de-
| csiOn
| George +. Langbein, for PLAINTIFF Arnoux Rich
| < WOodf0rd for defendant.