The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-05-09
BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS.
SUPREME coURT-eENERAL TERM.
Important Ruling Growing Out of .
Divorce Suit.

Inn portAnt Ruling Growing Out OF .
Divorce Suit.
Before Judges Davis, Brady and Daniels.
In the suit OF James Watson against Elizabeth
Watson decision was given yesterday, Judge
Davis writing the opinion briefly as follOws:-
s.Ths is an appeal from an order Of the Court at
Special Term denying the motion OF defendant to
set aside Judgment OF divorce entered Septem-
Der 8, 1864 The plaintiff who obtained the divorce,
died, in the fall OF 1872. intestate and the motion
Is now made upon service Of papers upon his ad-
mlnistrator. The grounds are fraud and irregu-
larty II the facts stated in the moving papers be
true there certainly ought be some relief for the
defendant; but the question before US Is whether
tnat ruling can be obtained on motion and on
notice simply to the administrator OF the estate
We think il cannot. No authority is cited for such
practice. The administrator has no power TO con-
sent to the setting aside OF the judgment. He has
no authority or control over it. There Is no
smpy the reaons ana
dispOses OF the custody OF the children both OF
which are questions in which the administrator.
as SUCH has no legal interest whatever 1t Is said
that he is interested in the question whether the
defendant is entitled, as widow, to dis
OF therefrom BY the judgment OF divorce,
but in that question as administrator
a mas nc Of eb @ made ~ e
Surrogate, ana the representative cannot properly
be said to have any legal interest whether the
the interstate or distribute portion to defendant.
We cannot avoid the conclusion that the motion
was properly denied. An action in the nature OF
bill OF review, bringing before the Court all the
heirs at law and other persons interested in the
real estate left by the decedent and such persons
as may have taken conveyances subsequent to the
decree or will, as his representatives. seems to
the only mode in which the relief sought can be
properly obtained. The order must be af1rmed.',
The Shepherd Alfmony Case.
Mr.. Thomas c. shepherd, who had been divorced
from his wife, jeanette G. Shepherd, and ordered
to pay her $1,000 year alimony, on learning that
she had married again, applied to the Court for a
modification or discontinuance OF the order as to
alimony, on the ground that the duty OF support
ing her now devolved on another man. The motion
was denied, and appeal was made TO this Court
A decision was rendered yesterday, in which IL
is held that the continuance OF the aimony does
not depend on whether the wife marries again or
not. The statute secures the wife in such cases
a right to marry again where she is the innocent
party, and does not, even by implication, deprive
her OF the alimony. Her marriage again Is no
sufficient reason for modification OF the decree,
the husbands circumstances as TO property re-
naming unaltered.
Street Railway Suit.
Isaac G. Dale obtained So, 500 damages against
the Brooklyn City Hunters Point ana Prospect
Park Railroad Tor injuries sustained. 1t appeared
that he had one foot on the step and one hand on
the rail when the car started and dragged him
SIX or eight feet, until he was Knocked against a
car coming In the opposite direction and severely
4
exceptions to the Court refusing to charge certain
propositions, which was denied. An appeal was
then taken on the exceptions and on the ground
that the damages were excessive, and yesterday
the Court overrued the points and confirmed the
judgment below.
The Price-Keyes Litigation.
The suit OF Rodman M. Price, brought against
Erasmus D. Reyes and Edmund Scott, which has
been 80 long before the Courts, was disposed OF
yesterday by this Court. Plaintiff obtained YER
dict against General Reyes and Mr.. Scott for al.
1 legged wrongful sale OF his properly IN San Fran
CISCO, in which sale they acted as his agents, but
sold the property, as he claimed, Considerably be,
/ appealed for new trial and the Court denies the
notion and orders Judgment for plaintiff on the
verdict.
George A. Hoyoke VS.. samuel Adams.-Order
affirmed, with costs.
4 obadiah NJ. Cunningham, executor vs. Mary
Cunningham.-Decree modified, with costs.
Rachel Hoppock vs.. John c. Tucker ct Aide
cree affirmed
Granreson p Reed vs. Dubois Smth.-Judgment
reversed, trial granted; costs TO abide event.
George sloane vs.. William Elmer-Judgment
reversed, new trial granted; costs 20 abide event
! Ahred Greenwood ct al. VS.. Mary A. Brlnk.-
Judgment affirmed.
Josiah lex vs.. the Board OF Education of the
| city OF New York.--Judgment reversed and new
trial ordered, With costs TO abide event.
Thomas Hope VS.. Charles +. Lawrence.-Judg-
Edmund W. Holmes vs.. Samuel Pettengin.-
4 judgment affirmed.
JaLies >. watson vs.. Elizabeth w. WATSON
ORDER anlrmed. without costs.
George Kuhn vs. Warren w. Brown ct al.-Judg-
4 ment affirmed.
1 The People ex rel The Pacific Mail Steamship
! Company vs.. The COMMISSIONERS OF Taxes.-Pro-
| ceedings afiirmed and writ quashed.
George A: Osgood aud Cyrus Curtis receivers, vs.
William D. T0ole ct al.-Motion for new Trial denied
and judgment for piaintiff on verdict
Barnabas Hammett VS.. John D. Barnard--Judr-
ment affirmed.
The Quassaic National Bank OF NewburQ vs.
Charlotte A.; WaddeL-Judgment reversed and
Anthony Pollock vs. Jonn 5. scbulse Receiver =
JudQmcDt afilmed,