The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-02

days: tnlrd, tnnt the palntlu supuihtes 10 allO"
10 The defendants on the trlal oI this action,
credit for the payment made 70 Mr.. Fellows ana
referred TO Ia the POINTS o. Mr. Truax; ionrin d,
cause 70 be placed on circuit calendar lOr trlal or
the nrst Monday OF June, 1875.
Dawson W. Hail. VIII not grant the order on
the undertaking presented.
Wilson vs.. DaVron-it 8 claimed on the part OF
Mrs. ~oolri1ge that TINS motlon cannot be
granted, because tine defendant. the Manhattan
Savings Banks has answered, and taat section
~ OF the code ONLY allows sucn motion 10 oe
made before answering. Mr.. scnel states IN hts
afLdavit that the time Tor the bank 70 answer
does not expire until June IN the one action anu
June in the other. Before / can eeclde tns mo-
ton a ism 10 be dennItely informed as 10 whether
the answers IN b0ta cases nave been served, anu
II so when they were served.
Young vs.. Young.-ln this case think that the
defendant was not IN default al the time the
order OF reference was granted and tnat sucn au
order was consequently premature. Tue order
for the publication u the summons was mace on
the Gtn OF February, 1873. me oelenuant was
personally served cut OF the ) ate on the Sth day
OF February, 1870 lne order referring the case
on default Was mace on tne "a day OF March,
for the publication OF the summons. the
code provides the personal service OF the
summons ana complaint on the defendant
without the State Is equivalent 10 pun
lication and deposit IN the Post once.
(section 1851 Therefore, where under an order for
the publication OF SD mmons personal service y
made beS ond the state, the mailing OF he sum-
mons ana compliant became unnecessary, suen
service does not, however, become enecllVe uhln
the time prescribed Dy the order Tor puphcatloh
has expired. see Abranams vs.. Mitchell, ADDos;
lzS: Richardson vs.. Bates, - now, 0iOi watts
Practice, 527, $50 53l, ana cases cited. Tue de-
fendanI was entitled 10 forty-twO DAYS from me
time when the order OF publication was maze anu
to twenty DAYS additional within winch 70 serve
his answer. lie Was not then IN default Wneh the
reference ordered. Under these cHcum-
stances caunot grant the decree
Greene vs.. Tie mayor, &c.-ine andavlts read
on the part Of the defendants seem 10 excuse IN
measnre me lacues Oh me part OF the defendants
In not setting up all the defences when the De
ienurnts cain maj they have 10 this action. The
defence winch these defendants first made has
been twice sustained by the General Term VI tlls
Court ana ii was only after an appeal TO the
nj
ascertained 10 be uniounded The deieud-
ants now assert that they can prove that tnere
was fraud in the letting OF the WORK, ana that
tney can show that the prices agreed 10 be paid
Tor the work were grossly eXoroitant ana eX-
cesslve. II sucn IL tue act, am Of the opinion
tuat The DEFENDANTS snould be allowed TO snow
and prove he fraud. The question, then, becomes
one OF terms. VIII allow an amendment OF the
answer on these term5:-Flrst. that the Dc end
ants pay all the costs and disbursements OF the
action, including the costs aud disbursements IN
the Court OF Appeals and exclusive Of me costs
and disbursements IA the appeals 70 the General
Term; second, that they pay the costs OF tais
motion; third, That the case retain lts place on
the calendar ana that Inc DEFENDANTS stlpulate
10 try the cause al the June term; fourth, mat
the amendments be served within two days
New York State Loan ana trust Company VS..
The Cook County Bank.-WIhout passing upon
the sullclency Vi the yerincatlon OF the answer
first served am Of the opinion that under ne
q cumstances the plaintiff must be deemed 10
have waived ne defect 10 the verihcation II any
existed. TIE time 10 answer expired April Is.
The plaintln waited until the 18Th, just iolr
DAYS alter the pleading had been served aud three
days alter ghe expiration or Inc time 10 answer,
and then returned the pleading II they intended
10 put the defendant IN deiauit think they should
have manifested sucn intention before the defend.
ants were remedies. u Waits Practice. 344 and
Cases cited.) Motion that answer first served
BY Judge Donohue.
Locn vs. Wllliams.- Cost OF allowance, $50
Held vs.. Lucca: Friend VS.. SprOut: Toner vs.
IOuer; IN che matter Of Murray; Cutting vs.. sic.
yens lNo, y cutting vs.. stevens no y Mutual
Lie Insurance Company vs. Fay.-Granted.
Brennan VS.. Goodsten; Edwards VS.. Hathaway;
Keegan vs.. smnn.-MoEions gran cd.
Duncan Vs. Norcross.-Mouon denied.
SUPERIOR coURT-sPEcIAL TERM.
BY Judge Van Worst
Miner va BeekmAn et al-Monon granted on
terms; order 10 De settled on notice.
Aeyser' Se.' VI hely eAecusor 9 r.a Issues
jury. The motion 10 advance under the act oi Feb
Dudey VS.. Shear cannot think that the de-
fendantis laches Is excused. Moreover the defend
ants case as TO defence Is completely overcome
Oy afdaV's on sa' 9pdys c oe9a AO'On 0sHle0'
Marsh vs.. Ely. Motion denied, win $40 coats 10
defendant 10 abide he event or the suit.
la ner.-Dismissed, with SIS costs TO DEFENDANT.
MARINE URT-cHAarBERs.
BY Judge McAdam.
Taylor vs.. Falk-Order vacated, answer 10 be
Tnorp Va. McDonougo.-oroe reserIled and
Whedon vs.. simon.-Tne $40 costs must be
stricken our.
smIti ys. rucksr.-Mr smith must give Ger.
Osborn IS. Kent.-Memorandum for attorneys.
Nudge W. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS must COM
plete MS examination.
Benton vs.. Hazlett; The Ninth Ward Bank vs..
Hazlett.-rhe Snerin must pay over the moneys.
Lord VS.. Rowe.-Danlel I. Robertson, appointed
receiver.
Tue Bowery savings Bank VI. Stadlberger; Co
hen Sterns; Farrell VS.. henry; Scnmift vs..
OreneiseT; Kingdom VS.. 0i1s; Scnerer vs.. Price,
Motions 70 open defaults gran e1 on terms.
BrInkerhon vs.. Dale; Dale VS.. Brlnkerhon; Lewis
". Gage: Bonn vs.. Doyle; Archer vs. Howland;
Craig V. McCoy.-M0uons denied.
k0genIbal IS. Adler; Cohen vs.. Adler; Anspacn
VS.. Ad er: Peary vs.. Authorizations granted
stipuaIhg Tot 20 sue.
Crawford v. Standardization granted on pay
ment OF $40 costs.
Merchntt VI. Robinson.-Deiendani 1ned s25 tor
contempt.
Appleton vs.. Burnend.-Commitment Tor con.
tempt ordered.
Toe People ex rel vs.. Chapman.-Defendant
nned 600 for contempt.
Meslgn v. Bany.-Moiion Tor Judgment granted,
VITA costs.
Harkins vs.. Fox.-Moton granted, without
cost.
wachman vs.. LAnslng.-Mouon granted on pay
msut Of Sl0 costs.
cooper VI. Taylor; TEACHER Va. Green; Homer
vs.. Ief0rd; Wise vs.. Mangan; Mclean vs.. Bell;
carroll vs. Aalone Leibsr Vs. KOesung; Mahoney
Va. Herman; Harris Va. Gregory FIeishhauer W.
Beer.-Aotions 70 advance causes granted