The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-10


by him. Defendant claims tnat the plaintiff IN
thus taxing up and holding these notes MADE MIN
ruary l. 1872 ana hat ne was sucn owner In TACT
az the time ne delivered the lull warranty deed "a
the defendant. ana oy such delivery merged the
mortgage In the deed and estopped himsell from
making any claim hereunder. The Court lOund
toe facts as nerenbeicre set forth and as
conclusion oi lay that the premises
were discharged from the lien OF the mortgage by
tile terms OF the plaintiffs deed. ana thtt the
painful Was estopped by the covenant therein
II ON enforcing the mortgage against the prem-
lses. Judgment vas rendered Tor defendant
d'smisslng the complaint. Win costs Upon sp-
peal 10 General Term tFourtn Department., Juog-
ment was reversed and new trial granted, cost
10 abide event, Juage smith writing the opln-
Deed were onlv against the grantor's own acts,
aud cannot be construed 10 cover the acts OF tne
Rrantor and liens ana encumbrances creatru ~
him: also mat the deed, by relation, took erect
Its dale February /, 1862. and was, therefore,
prior 10 the mortgage, wnicn pore aate peGesu ea
upon the property. From TINS judgment ana re-
versal defendant appealed 10 tne court o. a aips
peals where the ORDER 81 the General Term mas
been am rmed and Judgment absolute ordered Tor
respondent on stipulation, with costs.
FORECLOSURE SALE.
De Forest vs. Farley.-rhis was an appeal from
an oruer OF the General Term OF the First Depart
ment, aflrming an order OF the Special Term.
denying the motion Of Aaron Altmayer to vacate
sale made 10 him under the decree in this &C
ton ana directing him to complete his purchase.
made oy defendants At the time OF the com.
mencement OF the action one Christopher Keyes
was tue owner OF the equity Of redemption. When
tue mortgage IN SUIT was executes tae premises,
consisting oil four lots upon Sxty-ninth street ana
Lexington avenue, New York CITY, we're unlm-
proved, but before the commencement ol tue &C
ton six nouses had been erectei thereon. none
oil tue ds.eudants answered except keyes, VINO IN
tel posed frivolous answer Tue cause was placed
upon the Special Term calendar, and when called
IN It's order kcyes cJnsented that tn- pam
TN lake fragment as prayed in the compliant,
No testimony was taken, ana the findings
OF tue Juage (Charles II. Van Bruntl were identi-
cal with the allegations oil the complaint. de-
cree was entered directing q sale oil the centre
mortgaged premIses' by referee, the moneys
realized tnere,ron TO De nrst applied 10 the pay
ment OF the mortgage DEBT t$l4i4 O4l, ana the
remainder, alter payment OF costs &c, to be De
posted with the Chamberlain OF New York city.
10 the credit oil The actou,n &c. The house aud
lot first sold brought the sun Of Sl965o, being
sum sufficient TO pay the mortgage DEBT and al
costs, taxes, assessments. &C., which were liens
upon tile properly. Inc premises were AL SOLO,
and the appellant herein purchaser the NTH .ot
sold, rue Jour parcels sold previously thereto
had realized S64,475, and all the purchasers nad
signed the terms OF sale anu pad the proper de-
post. THIS u ono OF several proceedings Instituted
Dy the several purchasers at the sale 10 SET aside
the same and ior the return 10 them OF the
moneys deposited by them, upon the ground tnat
the Special Term exceeded It's authority
In directing a SAFE or the whole premises, ana
that wnen once sufficient money had been real
lzed upon he sale 10 pay on the existing IA debt
euness tue orce OF the order was expended ana
all subsequent sales void. me mo!lon was heara
renee at Special Term, when 10 was denied, and
the purchaser directed to compete his purchase.
Uron appeal 10 General Term (oeiore judges
DAVIS Daniels ana Brady this order was
atilrmel with $40 costs aud disbursements TO be
pau py Altmaye Judge Davis writing tue opinion,
wherein ne holds that, under established prece-
dents, the Special Term had power 10 direct sale
OF the entire premises, ana me mater pelng
the Judgment, such as the appellant, cannot
attach the decree upon the groulG that 1t Is I'M
provident. Atmayer appealed 10 ne Court OF
Appeals where tue order oil the General Term
has been affirmed, VITA coss.
L1BEL-TnIvoLoUs DEMURRER
Armstrong VS.. Week.-Mrs. was an action for
libel arising out or the political campaign OF 1878
in Clinton county, and the planfifr set forth the
following state OF facts IN his comprehensive
piainun is private citizen, residing In Clinton
county AMI holding no political oflce; that In
1873 the defendant Smith NJ. Weed, was demo-
cratic candidate Tor Member OF Assembly for Clin-
ton county; that October 81 1873 Amasa r. Wood,
the republican candidate, withdrew from the con-
test, and subsequently published a letter, wherein
he gave MS reasons for declining 70 run, and,
among other reasons, stated that ne had received
letter from defendant IN which the LATTER
offered ''tnstif be (WoOul would vii ndraw then he
Weed would nave sucn action taken by the
Democratic senatorial Convention as would be IN
the interest OF William 1aaeg, VINO was running
as republican candidate for the once Of State Sem
aLor IN the Sixteen district. ana that he would
have William FITZPATRICK, the then democratic
nominee tor Comfy Clerk OF Clinton county,
witnGraw or would secure his defeat That de-
iendaht, In answer TO TINS letter, published by
Wood, lssu ed ana dis riButed a circular wherein
he CHARGED Inc pleiuiif with writing and circulat-
ing the Wood letter ana declared the same TO be
wholly false, ana also charged plaintiff vi n evil
fully aud msliciously uttering ana publishing
many fasehoOds against him tine deiehdant)
because ne not use me for ms evil aud selfish
purposes That in subsequent circular, issued
November /, 1873, defendant again charged PLAIN
tin WITH issuing anu publishing ths Mood" let
ter; also with publishing 'Infamous les regard
ing defendant. lie also spoke or piaintin, In the
circular IN question, as 1.-THE man VINO - known
as the man woo never had TREND. ana who
never preferred friendship Tor any one without
blasting him." Also tuat defendant inserted and
puDiIsned In his circular an AFFIDAVIT purportng
saId WolH saears THAT plalntin showed
the Wood letter TO MIN twoln oeore
handwriting, and unslgned.n Plaintiff AYERS tnat
all OF these statements are fase aud iibellous,
and claims damages 20 the amount OF $4,000
Upon motion, certain portions Q! the complaint
were ordered stricken out. with leave to plaintin
to amend ms complaint u ne 50 desired. Plainun
eecting not 20 amend, deiendant demurred To the
complaint upOn the ground mat L. uld not state
facs sufficient 10 con .iiiute cause Of action.
Plaintiff moved ioT Judgment upon the ground
that the demurrer was frivolous THIS motion
was granted, VITA leave TO deicn0aut 10 answer
upon payment OF costs. Upon appeal 20 the Gem
eral Term fThird Department., this order was
ain rmed, with liberty tp defendant % answer
WITHIN twenty Gays, upon payment Of costs OF
10 the Court o. Appeals, which has dismissed the
appeal. with Gusts.
ALBANY, June 2, 1875.
No. IS. DoIan W. The Acknowledgements re-
sumed and concluded.
no. 20. susan A. McConom, administrators, &C.,
respondent. W. Emory r. seward and another,
appeliants.-Argued by y. q. Moak, OF counsel for
appellant, AMI ~ A. j. Parker for respondent.
No. A.. William McGrifl1n. RESPONDENT, ys. John
Bard, appel ant.-Areusd by William HoDrooE,
uf counsel for pe!lant. ana submitted Tor the re-
spondent
20 a. John Jacob Astor. appellant vs.. The
Mayor or New YORK, &c, respOndenis.-Argued
by Henry II. Anderson. .; cOun-ei Tor appellant
aad uy William. Burns or respondents.
No A. SBmuel j. Hunt respondent, VS.. George
NJ. Chapman. appe,lant.-Argued Oy y G. MOak, Of
counsel fr appellant, and ~ J. Z. smith for re-
spOndent
Adjourned until thursday. Juns 10. The Court
takes recess from thursday, the 10th, to Mon-
day. the l4th inst.
DAY CALENDAR.
Tho following ~ the day calendar for Thursday,
June 10, 1876 Nos. o. Of, ~ 10, l5 r. Al and 6.
SUPREME COURT CALENDAR.
BUFFALO. y. ". June o. 1875.
wfuw "a fta IaN ri no nr1ac