The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-21
DECISIONS.
SUPREME couRT--cHAMBERs.

Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. whelpley;
Wooster vs.. Keeman; Martineau We. La Forge
washington Lie Insurance Company v.
wurthemier; Newman IS. Newman; 10 the matter
Sornney: thompson vs. Cassidy; Kingier. vs..
Acereco: Harden W.. Bryant; Mead vs.. Mead /;
I@nerts w. Lansing: Vanguard We. National Bank
Note COMPANY: SnAnley ~. BurtIs; Frost W. Van
loon and C;oodrlch vs. Skfdmore.-Grauted.
In tue matter OF Corfu wish % counsel
vayer " Mayer-lt does not clearly appear
whether tile proposed order II consented 70 by
the attorney FOR al me DEFENDANTS. u.
RIcnle - CoyIe.-wny was the undertaking ex-
executed 20 long before the affidavIt was mace on
peall ~. DEALT require further af1davit as
10 the Inability 70 ascertain the defendants resi-
in the matter ~ Joseph strupp, otherwise Carl
yoRt.-Tnis writ is dismissed
Alleman vs. Booth "a How, 500 IN re McDon-
nelIal Blatchford. 1917 Bills vs. Tue New Orleans,
81. Louls and Chicago RAILROAD Company.-Bond
acce oted ana approved.
swain W. Fox.-ls this a DEFAULT
The People. &C, Vs. New ! ork ano Staten lslana
ferry companlcs.-Order granted modifying IN
Junction -
Kerrison KerrIsoD.-kepOrt OF referee con-
armed and decree Of divorce granted.
In the matter OF stewart-f1rst, the item OF
commIss.ous - me '1tanis nTon
erIyf second, tins proceeding IL Tor the con-
yenience Of tne sufeties 70 rehene mem speeany
the disbursements without deduction from tse
sum payaDle Dy them should like to near coun-
sci upon these points before granting the order.
b. Judge Dono Iue.
In the matter Of Jonn BRADLEY think the
father IL emitted % tne custody Of the child, and
an order 70 that e1ect can pe entered.
SUPERIOR coURT-sPEcnL TERM.
By Judge van Worst
The Tribune Association ys. smith; SANFORD vs..
Edwards.-Motions granted on terms. see memo.
Bertrand ". Carl-Praysr Of petition denied.
see memorandum.
panl.-rBe defendants attorney having entered
into and signed tue stipulation under the 0enef
thai the date Of the policy and application are
identical should. upon familiar principles sppllra-
ole To MISTAKES. be relieved. 10 mold hlm 70 the
- sci an in ms answer. This he d0es not intend
10 waive. Motion granted On payment Of costs 81
motion.
Harper VI McEiroy.-0rder o. reference 10 CON-
pute amount due.
L0omey " McGough ct all DO not think that
the provisions Of section 2st % the Code apply 70
the ea-e or executors ana trustees The record
does not show tnat tney are judgment debtors
nor Is the money IN question ~ be reached IN THIS
the trustees comply with tne provisions u the
sehicS vs. Ferguson ct al.-Notion denied, with
HaIstead ". cockroft.-Order settled
stewart ". New York, West shore and Chicago
and the examination. under section 2e4 Of the
Code, must proceed.
COMMON PIEAs-sPEcIAL TERM
By Judge j. r. DAILY.
Earle Va. TnompsoD.--Fndlngs settled az In
draft o ed herewith.
Ors Ell al. W.. WORMS ct al-Pr0ceeedings dis
missed as to all persons VINO have not entered
general appearance.
Pruden ~ yOornts e aL--Order to plead as
provided BY practice.
COMMON PLEAs-GESERAL TERM.
BY Judge Robinson.
Dnperat W. Behan.-Judgment reversed abso-
lutely Tor reasons stated IN the opinion.