Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-10-12
THE C&,uRTS.

COURT IN GENERAL TERN.
On Saturday, after our report closed, the case
OF hasher agt. SWeepy was argued. This case
arises out OF
PARTY WALL DISPUTE.
1t appears that Mrs. Kosher bought certain
property on 1th street, near X, some year or
two ago, and a stairway supposed to bs on the
party line, was used in common by her and the
Sweenys. a few weeks ago the latter COM
mt need some repairs, and in making them cut
down the stairway Tor pOrtiOn), and Mrs. Ra-
cher hied bill for an injunction, and a tenn
poTaTy order was made restraining the SweenYs
from prosecuting the work. 1t however ap-
peared, on survey being made, that a portion
Of the disputed stairway was on the land of the
defendants, and the restraining order was dis
charged and the niunCtiOn refused. The COM
plainant thereupOn appealed 10 the Court in
General Term. The STeenys, it Is alleged, dis
regarded the appeal, and continued with the
work. A few days ago Judge Moore, for plain.
TIL, moved in the Court in General Term for a
rule to show cause why they should not be at
tache0 fer contempt, and this motion came up
on Saturday, and was argued by Judge Moore
and MIR. j. h. Bradley for complainant, and
Mr. Norris for defendants. The plaintiff con
tended that the appeal restored the restraining
order, and the defendant, by Mr.. Norris, ar
Sued that the granting Of a restraining order
was discretionary, and an appeal does not lie in
such care.
This morning Judge wyle delivered the opin-
ion of the court in the above case DENYING the
motion for writ of attachment.
A LIEN CASE.
The case Of Tucker and Sherman aRt. J. NJ
tTnes and Cdtharine ShyDe was argued by Mr.
Df niels for L. and S., appellants, aud Mr..
Cleary, for sppellees.
This, an appeal from decree of the Equity
Court setting aside sale made pursuant to a
decree OF that court, passed On the first day OF
May, 1873, IN suit brought by Tucker < Sher-
man against james NJ. Ormes, to enforce a lien
against certain property described in the bill.
i he appellee fled her petition in the Equity
Court or the District OF Columbia On the 9th
day Of January, 1874, praying that the sale
made under the decree in the suit OF Tucker 81
sherman VS.. James NJ. Ormes be set aside on
the ground that she had purchased the property
OF James N. OTmes on the 25tb day of Septem-
Der. ISL, before the plaintiffs had fled their
lien, TO enforce which the sale complained OF
was made. The appellants deny that Mrs.
Shyne made the purchase from Ormes and
deny her title 10 the property as against their
claim. At the time the first item in the account
OF Tucker Il Sherman was furnish ed to Ormss
for these buildings, (Which was August Is, IS7i,l
Ormes was the owner OF the property, and
erecting the buildings thereon, Tucker 6 Sher-
man continued to furnish materials fer the
buildings until December II, 1871. The ac-
count being upaid, they, on the Goth day of
January, 1872, filed their lien on the property
and ON the following August filed their bill to
enforce the same. 4 decree WAS passed, by
consent, on the 9Th day OF December, 1872 with
an agreement that it should not be enforced
against the property until May list, 1873, after
which time the money not being paid, the
property was sold.
The appellants contend: First. That Mrs
Shyne did not purchase this property OF Jas. n.
time of filing her petition she had 10 title to this
property, as against lien creditor, or in fact
against any one who was In position to attack
the conveyance, Second. That there is no pri-
witty Of contract between Ormes and Mrs.
Sbyne; the purchase from her by Gilbert was
not made until long after the deed had been
properly executed and delivered to Gilbert and
the title vested. Even the cancellation Of a
deed after its delivery, does not revest the title
in the grantOr. Third. That at the time Mrs..
Shyne claims TO Lave purchased this property,
she knew that it vas in sn unfinished state, and
Gilbert entered into an agreement to finish the
houses; and at that time Tucker & Sherman, the
plaintiffs, were furnishing materials for the
houses, and continued TO furnish it until the
houses we're completed. Mr.. Ormes was the es-
tensible owner of the house, and ii it really be-
long6d to Urs. Shyne, then OTmes became her
agent in completing the houses, AMI a suit
against Ormes Cher AGENT was notice to Mrs,
Sbyne OF said proceedings. Mrs. Shyne, pur-
chasing the houses while materials were being
furnished, was bound, in order to protect her
self, TO see that the msteriai men had been
paid, the mechanics lien law being notice to
everybody of the fact that the parties had a
lien on the property.
The decree below was affirmed.
CRIMINAL COURT, Judge Hslmphreys.
To-day, Peter Parker was convicted OF lar
ceDy and sentenced to three years in the peni-
tertiary. Robert Turner, larceny, (appeal;)
witnesses for government failed 20 answer, and
judgment for defendant. Frank Smith and
Charles Wilson, larceny; latter plead guilty;
Smith on trial.