The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN BANKRUPTCY.
DECISIONS
BUPnEHrE coURT-cHAMBERs
prIrSoa Ia-ra.a

BY Judge Lawrence.
Terden vs.. The Mayor, Gc.-Explanation re-
AppIenee vs.. Bishop cannot grant the amend
nsnt asked for until / have the IuIi title u the
action before me. At present only portion u
she DEFENDANTS names are gwen.
Mcdonald vs. HngheA-The certificate OF the
chamberlain should De annexed 10 the report
Young vs. Young.-ln this case / require the
PROOF OF the service by publication and AL tne
Daley vs. Daley.-RepOrJ confirmed and JUG
ment VI divorce grained 70 the plaintiff
Pro Association v. our John; Faircnnd
va Faircnnd; third Avenue Savings Bank ".
Bhackleton; Jones VS.. New YORK, West shore and
Chicago Railroad Company; In The matter Of
Granted.
order 0f reference ~ this case 70 ascertain facts
and 20 report on fees q s2eci-l receiver.
Williams - O'NenL-lhe decree or order SUD
mttteG Il imperfect. tSee last page.l
Melville ". Aelvins.-geieree's report and re-
custody Or toe chid AWARDED 70 piainun.
IN Ine matter " ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS for
Mundorn vs.. Hundorn-An allowance OF $3.50
Er2nIed 70 the plaintiff.
Barnes " Lodiam.-Tne application should be
made IN Kings county.
In the matter u Rabold.-The deposition ofPeter
bosterm II not verified.
N the matter o. Ia Farge--Beiore granting the
order OF Tcerence asked f9r require an am sylt
slowing what any relations o. me lu1auc have
On interest 10 Dis estate, 20 that proper notice
nav be served upon tnem.
Brant vs.. De ForesL-fhe full title Of this case
united, lt II impossible ~ determine whetner the
consent - signed 81 the attorneys lor all me par
rles. some paper must be submitted which VIII
snow the iuli title. and also saOw that all the
ATTORNEYS have conseateo 20 tue eEtry Or lie pro-
Dosed 0Taer.
Reed Alen.-To prevent any misunderstand-
ing Of the rights Of the parties | vii grant
ser Allowing tue defendant " fOreclOse the mort
K4ge - reformed, Notwithstanding the provision
o. the order ana dsso4Flng sale ORDER ~ taaE ex-
tent
Bayles w. Klersled.-The defendants may serve
their proposed answer aud may come IN and de-
4end these cOnd LIONS .-FirsL on payment OF
Gusts Of motion; second, that said answer be
served On 0r before the 26th inst; tlird, that
gelerence ~ al the issues Dc made 70 the Hon. J.
n BOsworth. said reference 70 proceed on I've
days notice aud 70 DO continued from day To day
nnLn finished. unless the referee, for good cause
SHOWN, enaI 10 bis discretion otherwise direct
Nemple vs.. Tie society Of the Church Of the
Yuritans.-lhe m0tion - 70 vacate an order made
March Z 1875. There Is no sucn order among the
papers There a an order maze January 4, 1875,
winch supposed 70 he the order iaiended when
made my last Memorandum. Upon re-Cxamln-
Ang the papers ina TWO orders and purpOrting
- have been made BY me az Special Term, dated
the lin aud lzth Of March, respectively, while,
In the af1davit ~ MT. rruax II IL stated that the
order Drec Gdng the defendant rom giving EVIL
1ence maze by ne March il. / require coun-
eel 20 de points within four days frOm date, show
Ing definitely wpat crder IL sought % De set ssde
and re grounds on which me notion = based and
on whiCH n i resisted.
BenrIQues ". Fcrra.-0rder wranted
BARuIfe VI. Burke.-The COnseng not being
gigned ~ me attorneys Tor All gns parties, under
rule ~ ! cannot appoint referee named.
In the matter or SEucher.-PTiSOneT discharged
on returu 81 snerth