Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-05-05
THE COURTS.
COURT IN GENERAL TERN.
Yesterday the case of

Yesterday the case Of
TALTY ACT. THE rRBRpMEN's BANK
was argued and submitted. This WAS an action
in replevin, plaintiff claiming that defendant
unjustly detained a claim against the corpora
ton for 81, O96.75. On the trial IN the Circuit
Tally borrowed through Kendig. a broker,
$1,000 for sixty days, giving his note and the
claim as collateral, with the understanding that
If he IT. failed to pay it Kendig should have
the right to purchase the collateral at 80 cents
on the dollar; that before the note matured
keDdig took it up, and day or two prior to
maturity Tally called on Kendig and offered
kendg refused to receive Ii, and afterwards
plaintiff ascertained that Kendig, without his
knowledge, had sold the collateral at SO cents
on the dollar to ID. l.. Eaton, actuary. The de-
PENDANT gave in evidence testimony that Kendig
was authorized to sell or take the collateral AZ
90 cents, and he did take ii and applied part of
the proceeds TO the payment of the note, and
offered to pay the balance Of the proceeds to
plaintiff and that plaintiff had made no tender
TO Pay the note. The court iDstru cted the jury
that the verdict should be that the defendant
l. entitled TO return OF the property replevied,
or Its full value. The plaintiff excepted and
the bill of exceptions came up to the General
Term.
The appellant (plaintiffl argued that the
court erred in its charge to the jury; that the
Issue is one OF fact, and defendant could acquire
no title against the true owner, even If the col
lateral was negotiable paper. This paper was
not an order TO pay, and although good between
the parties is q mere chose in action. And it vas
trrOr U CudISc tue jury 10 return a verdict
the defendant, because: The chattel replieved
was a mere chose in action, and possessed none
OF the attributes Of negotiable paper, and was
not assigned by the plaintiff to defendants VEN
dor. Kendig, the broker, took no equitable IT,
tie by its delivery into his possession, IL the
plaintiff o proofs are true. which was q question
for the Jury. Nor had be authority express or
implied to sell the collateral, certainly not be-
fore the note matured and was not paid.
The defendant argued: LIST That the endorse
ment In blank and delivery Of the voucher by
the plaintiff to broker for the purpose of being
negotiated and the sale Of the voucher by the
ant perfect title to the security, whether there
was verbal agreement between plaintiff and
the broker that Q sale should be made or not.
I'd. II the voucher was given as q pledge or
pawn only, then 10 IL clear that the defendant
took al the interest the broker or pawnee pos
sessed and was entitled, ct least, to all the
brokers' at the time Of the sale. And to enable
ne pislntin to maintain replevin IL was nece 3
sary mat he should nrst have made a tender to
the defendant of the auou Mt due from him nm
ms note. without such tender he had no ri sht
70 tne possession OF the voucher. Messrs RAJ
icy anu hidoie for plaintiff, Totem for defend
A DIVORCE CASE
The case OF Hattie j. French against Edward
wood for petitioner, no sppsarsn ,e for re.nond-
ent. In this case petitioner asks Q divorce from
her hus band on the ground that he had hecoms
imbecile in mind, and failed 10 snnnort NE
family. In the Equity Court the bill vas dis
missed and an appeal was taken.
Judge Cartier was inclined to the opinion
that II the bill set out case of im5ecilty
for q decree Of divorce; but, while that might