The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-04
COURT OF APPEALS-DECISIO
ALBANY, Friday April 80, 1875.
Below win be found summaries Of some interest
ing cases just decided.

ing cases just decided.
PRINCIPAL AND AGENT-RATIFICATIoN
Remington W. P4lmer.-ln 1910 deendant owned
premises in Rochester, and agreed 10 sell To plain
til for $4,000. Defendant appointed an attorney
named Harris, who conducted the negotiations ~
telegraph. Before delivery OF the deed plalntln
discovered an encumDrance which he wished de.
Quoted from part paymenI OF 10000 paid down.
The So, 900 was paid, ana also remainder Of price
agreed upon but with the understanding that de-
1endant should pay the assessments when due.
Defendant refused 10 pay The assessment, upon
the ground that the acceptance OF the deed
without covenant was waiver OF PLAINTIFFS
TN claims that the acceptance OF The price o. the
property by defendant was q ratlucalon oil MS
negotiations with the agent Harris. Upon trial
plaintiff was non-suiteu and a motion for new
trial denied. Inc plaintiff has appealed from
the Judgment OF tue supreme court, aud lhe court
dered new trial. costs 70 abide the event.
SAVINGS BAHKs-RIGHTs OF DEPosIToRs-FoRGERY.
de poslted with defendant 1925 90 one GARRISON
distracted the plaintiffs boog rom MS trunk,
drew the same from the BANK. the thief
has not been found Defendants bylaws
provided that possession OF the pass book was
sufficient evidence OF ownership TO authorize tue
payment OF moneys due thereon. There waa
material difference between t1e forged signature
and the plaintiffs signature as written IN lns
signature BOOK OF defendant Defendants c aim
that having over 25 900 deposltors II Il Impossible
that the officers OF the bank can recognize theIn
ALL The Court neld substantially this view Oh tue
case anu directed a verdict lor deIenaan. lyon lyon
brought his case mere the Court nave anirmed the
Judgmen: OF the Court below, win costs
APPEAL To COUNTY COURT-COSrs.
Blysby vs.. warden.-An action ia the nature OF
'troverii for the conversion Of plaintiffs morse oy
defendant. Plalntln demanded 500 damages.
case was tried IN the nrst instance before us
tce OF the peace aud Judgment rendered 10 layor
OF the plaintiff for the amount claimed. Defend
ant appealed rom this JUDGMENT 10 tue County
favorabie 10 MIN A new trial was had IN the
County Court, before a jury, and judgment was
asa ss Costs were taxed by the Clerk IN
10 nf
entered Judgment for 1885 10 against
the defendant. Defendant moved 70 strike out
the costs inserted and claimed that the Judgment
rendered in the County Court, being more iavor'
able 70 him by over SO than tue judgment ap.
costs. This motion was denied and the taxation
by the clerk affirmed. Defendant appealed 70 tne
orGer OF the county Cours, denying the motion.
was affirmed, with $40 costs. reargument was
Term, sitting az Albany, reversed the order
OF the County Court aud set aside Tue ad-
jgsime1t Of costs ana we srs o nortand
county 20 adjust the costs Ia favor Of the deieud-
ant and appellant 70 deduct thereir0m me Jam
ages awarded to the pialnttn IN the County Court,
and that defendant nave execution Tor the bai-
anee. Defendant entered judgment against me
plaintiff or the balance OF Ss3 Al. From THIS enlTy
OF Judgment plainttff appealed To tue supreme
Court. judgment was here affirmed, Win costs.
or Appeals aud tnis Court has now affirmed the
MALICIOUS PROSECUTIONS.
Heyne vs.. Bair-An action for alleged damages
through malicious prosecution aud iuise lmprlsOn-
menr M the instance oil tue defendant Plaintiff
Il a merchant at syracuse; defendant IL note
broker at the same place. one AcStrmann, o. tne
same place, nad been an indorser on plalntins
notes, Defendant discounted Two notes Tor plain
tin OF $500 EACH bOtn purpo ted to Ne tndofsed Dy
AcEermann. defendant says he became convinced
tnat the Endorsement upon one 81 them was q
forgery He wrote to Ackermann, and suDse.
quently TOOK tile note 10 uank ana SUP.
mitted IL to the teller, who pronounced
tie signature q probable forgery. DE endant
swore out warrant and mad palniin arrested.
Palntlr was kent under ar est al night. IN the
morning AcKermann, being found, ackno wiedged
the geuutnenCss ~ lne lndorsehent anu plalntn
was discharged PaintIH claimed $1,000 lam lge,'
Upon trial supreme Couru judgment was o.,
rected Tor defendant. Upon appeal new ttlaI
was denied aud tue non-suit affirmed. PlainsI i
appealed to tie Court OF Appeals anu thls SouIs
mas reversed the judgment OF the General Iern
and ordered new trai, costs g ABIDE the event
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCES. INFANT TRUST ESTATE
TITLE no PROPERTY, ETC.
Hopkins vs.. Braun.-rnis was controversy
arIs0g out o. an argument Tor the SAFE o. certain
the paIntIf to me defendant In lsov MaTkarss
Gilien widow II Thomas Gll.en, presented a peti.
ton 70 tue Supreme Court in winch sac alleged
tnat see was married 70 sad ihomas olneh ~
1857 and az toe time nl her mdrlaEe WIS sns
she placed this money IN the hands u heI hussDane
70 purchase the properly loF heT ne soes
q deed IN bis own name without mel
knowledge or permission lie promised 70 nave
title ia her. but died before ne could take the ne
cessary steps. The ony neir-atlaw Of SAT- Inomai
ol his deceased brother. The petitioner prayet
for an order directing the conveyance " the prop
erty in question BY tue infant u her. "A guardian
al nteIn was appointed for the infant by the
Court aud tue matter referred 10 referee. The
referee reported thereon IN favor OF Mrs. Gllleni
title 10 tne properly, and the guardian I'D litem
was directed 10 convey, on behalf or the INFANT 10
the petitioner Toe palnur taxes his title
through Mrs. Gen, and the proceedings
ia ncr De1alf are mere recIted. 1n0
de endant collects 10 the title on tue grounds
that the proceedings under the petition we're
irregular, and tuat the infant ned Ia trust
for TIE petitioner had been properly adludicated
upon ana declded: That the evidence admitted
was improper in FORM, ana the guardian al lltem
had no power 70 wave o lection 10 IL. a. case
was agreea upon without action, anu submitted
70 the Supreme Court tBr00klynl, and fragment
Of specific performance renaered thereon against
deleudant. Upon appeal the Court nave leversed
this Judgment aud dismissed the proceedtuHa,
without costs.