The New York herald., 1875-07-14
DECISIONS.
SUPREME coURT-cHAMBERs.
NV Judge Davis.


BY Judge Davis.
Humphreys vs.. Hurtr.-I am not able TO see any
legal or equitable ground upon winch as the case
now stands the defendanrs right. to receive the
money can be Denied paInstaking and careful
trial mas been had. The learned referee, after an
unusually dlhgent examination tas shown by his
plaintiff That decision stands as the Judgment OF
The Court, with the same effect though pro-
n0unced by the special term sitting In equity.
This Court cannot anticipate that an appeal will
be taken, and Is therefore not justified In making
IN e I s sns eys ysRs " tSe
plalntn VIII be protected, as IL seems TO me- II
The motion be granted upon conditions ;-Flrst
that defendant stlpulate that the payment snail
not be deemed voluntary one on the part OF the
plaintn, ana snail not operate as sucn 10 l, ms
prejudice; second, tnat II this action be Intimately
determined, In wnole or in part, III iavor OF pain
tiII, he shall be entitled 10 Judgment Of restltu-
ton against defendant to the same extent as ne
would have been II sued upon the contract Tor the
moneys and JUDGMENT therefor had been re-
versed and restitution thereupon ordered by the
Court. with these conditions the motion Is
granted-the order to be settled on Two days no
tlce, unless agreed upon by counsel.
In tile mater OF the recevership OF the Guar
dian Savings Instituton.-lhe order Is made upon
an order to show cause' 5 Oy sr nS sang !us
be set aside. IL the present motion were made
on behalf The receiver TINS court Mouio "a & EEL AZ
motion as opened for reconsideration. But the
receiver does Dot appear either 70 make or oppose
that It Is made on his benaf or ON behalf OF any
person IN interest. 1t Is opposed by the PEE
and he objects that no. person Ia
interest makes the motion. I cannot help
thinking tnat the order to refund was i'm
prudently made. 1t no reason for refunding
the money paid that the liability turned out much
larger than that amount, nor can there be any
serious question that the surety would nave been
entitled 10 credit on his liability upon the former
recslver's bond for the sum paid. cannot prop
TO find that the attorney who makes this motion Is
interested pecuniarily In the question. he should
have accompanied MS application with an amdavlt
showing that his action was taken on behalf or
some one VINO had right to protect the funds In
the HANDS OF the receiver from an improper dispo-
sitlon thereof under the circumstance. must
deny this mUuon, but without costs and without
prejudice to Its renewal on additional ana proper
Gil vs. Guardian Savings Bank.-I find that this
motion involves individually matter as 10 which
this stand over and be heard before the special
Session at Chambers, In the third week OF the
present term. The same to be heard on the pres
ent papers and such additional papers as may be
served four days before the hearing.
Barstow vs. Sninln; Salmon VS.. Leonard
BY Judge Barrett.
Cline vs. Clinei In the matter Of EarL-orders
In the matter OF Zimmerman.-I see no reason
for an allowance OF $1,000 10 the attorney. That
Is nearly one-ha1 OF the sum offered 10 the infant.
The taxable costs at Special Term were $243 o5
and at Generarlerm $lal 4S. These costs may be
allowed and O reasonable counsel fee, say $3.50.
To that extent The report be confirmed. This
seems to me to De especially just in view Of the
fact That the cause seems 70 have been tried and
argued at the General Term by Mr.. Niles as coun-
sci, and thus Mr.. Ferguson has simply performed
the duty OF attorney IN the case.
Carnand VS.. Coxe-Let an attachment ISSUE
returnaDle on the 14th inst. and baIable In $780,
Boyer VS.. Haas.-Neither order is correct. Tne
order should read that the default be opened on
payment OF trial fee and costs OF opposing motion
and unless the plainun stipulate to amend the
decree In the manner and TO the extent indicated
upon the hearing before me. In the event Of
stipulation being given decree amended without
costs.
SUPERIOR -coURT-sPECIAL TERM.
BY Judge Spelr.
Darius Dawson ve. Pauline Davison,-There
must be q reference in this case to ascertain The
truth oI the extraordinary facts disclosed In this
case before proper order can be made.
Minnie Schl0ss vs.. Paul Schl0sS--Judgmen mt
ordered for the plaintiff. Report OF referee con-
1rmed.
earns vs.. Piatt-Costs as taxed must be
iaf1rmed. The statute grants new trial in eject
ment upon paying the costs o. the first trial. This
defendant dld before he could have the second
trial. This was statutory favor.
COMMON PLEAs-sPECIAL TERM
BY Judge Larremore.
In the matter OF Houghton; In the matter OF
Horn et a.-Appicatlons granted.
May VS.. BrelVog ell Injunction dissolved II de-
len0ant file security and sttpulate 10 refer.
Cantrell VS. Chamoerlain--See memorandum
for counsel.
rse Equitable Life Assurance Society of the
United States VS.. Bull ct. al. Duncan VS.. Belden
Donelly vs.. observation-disclosures granted
1he New York Lie Insurance Company VS..
,Meagher ct al.-Reierence ordered.
Beach vs. WlnR.-Motion denied.
Waters, receiver, &c, VS.. Crawiord.-Attach-
.ment ordered.
Metzger VS. weibert.-Petition granted.