The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-24
COURT OF APPEALS.
ALBANY, May %, 1870.


Judgment affirmed, with costs-Wlams vs.. The
Town OF Duancsburg; Brick Va Brick; Delaney Va
Brown VS.. Champn Kingston Bank va Eltugc;
People, &c, VS.. Flanagan; National Bank OF Ncwburg
VS. Smith.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to
ABIDE tho event-King vs. New York Central Railroad
Company; Depeyster VS. Murphy; Mareton VS. smith;
N. Y. G. and c. II. r. Niagara Falls Suspension Bridge
Company Bachman.
Judgment reversed and judgment for defendant,
with costs Of all parties to be paid out Of the fund
Gourley Campbell.
order affirmed with costs.-Anderson Reilly;
Order reversed and new trial granted costs to abide
the event--Whceler VS.. Reynolds
Order granting new trial affirmed and judgment nb-
solute for defendant on stipulation with costs-God-
frey vs. Moser; Wells VS. Miller.
Becker VS. Howard.-Moton for rcargumcnt Sub
No ass Knaeppclv vs.. Kings County Fire Insurance
Company.-upon consent and affidavit, and on motion OF
j. Albert Wilson, OF counsel Tor respondent, number
changed calendar from 1886 to 1907, the ground
that It 10 appeal from judgment aud Is not entitled
vandenburgh VS.. President. &c. of Grecnbush-
Motion for reargumcnt Submitted.
APPEALS PROM ORDERS
No. 372 Ryan VS.. Atlantic Mutual Insurance Com
pany-Argued by Charles Il. Whitehead Tor appellant,
No. III In re- n Y G. and G. Railroad vs Arm
strong.-Argued by Edward Harris for appellant h. v.
Rowland Tor respondent
No. 197. Murphy w. Buckman-Arguod by George
w. wingatc for appellant, Nelson smith for respond
No $50 Gladding vs. Goodrich Submitted
No. 81 William II. jerks and another, respondents,
vs.. Catharne Brown, implicated, &c, appellant -
Argued by Samuel Hand for appellant, J. Albert Will
Tor respondent
No. lisa Sherwood VS.. Mercantile Insurance Com
pany.-Argucd by George Il. Hubbard for appellant,
John II. White for respondent
No 1856 Mcclure VS. Rollins Argued by John J.
Perry for appellant, Samuel Hand for respondent
No Is. Gilman vs. Gilman Submitted for respond
and case kept open for arrival Of appellants coun
sell
The following Is the calendar for May "a, lS76:-Noa
1877, 1885, l4s, l76, l62, 1872, 1913, 1sl-
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WASHINGTON, May % 1874
tnv'unted States sdprcma Court the following do
csions have been rendered.
RUFUS Baker and Isaac y. Graham, assynces OF tho
Odorlcss Rubber Company, VS.. Henry s Hhne--In
the Circuit Court for the district OF Cohaecti-
cut-Tno Odorless Rubber Comuany, being In nm ON.
barrassed condition. undertook to relieve itself by Oh
tanning additional subscriptions to its capital stock Il
was decided Increase the stock and the defendant
subscribed for 24o shares and pad go ZOO being
also elected a director He then refused 10 pay any
moro, and tho corporation having been audged bank
rupt the plaintiffs, assignecs brought the present
suit TO recover the unpaid instruments amounting to
$4,000 Two defcnces relied by defendant
That Que OF the conditions on which he agreed 10
nav was that thirty per cent oil tho Old stock was 10 be
deduc ed extngushed and this had not been done:
and
That the subscriptions had been obtained by fraud
ulent representations as 10 the condition OF the
pany That the whole proceeding fraudulent de-
sign relieve old stockholders Of broken corpora
ivn the expense OF the subscribers that ms
he had learned enough OF the condition OF tho
company to become OF this fraud he abandon ned
the concern and repudiatcd the contract
Tho Court concurs in the construction given to tho
subscription paper BY the Circuit Court rpon which
a reversal ordered, but dismiss tho writ for
want Of Jurisdiction. holding that tue order made by
the Circuit Court which only the judgment OF
the District Court. not final Judgment from which
writ OF error lies to this Court.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
Richard L. walach, Charles n. Wallach and james
N. c. wallach vs. John Van Rswick-Appeal
from the supreme Court OF the District or
Columbia compainanls are children, and heirs
At law OF Charles > Wallach who officer In the
Confederate army during the late rebellion. While
IN the Confederate service his real estate situate tho
city OF Washington seized by order OF the Prcsi-
dent, under the Coniscaton act Of July IL, 1861,
and libel Tor ITS condemnation was duly Med
The lot OF ground respecting which the
versv exists was Condemned as forfeited TO the United
States on the 10Th day OF july ls03 and the 9th day
OF september next following Il sold under writ Of
vendition cxponas the defendant Van Riswick becom.
ING The purchaser. Prior TO the seizure the lot had
been conveyed TO Charles s. wallach trust 70 secure
the payment Of pomissory note s. 600 which he
had borrowed, and tho time the seizure portion
OF this debt renamed unpaid and due tho defendant
TO whom the note and the security oil the deed trust
had been assigned walach's interest the property
was, therefore, an equity OF redemption and by the
connscation sale tho purchaser acquired interest
and held with the security Of the deed OF gwen
Sd OF February, 1885, WaiIach, having returned 10
Washington made deed purporting TO convey the lot
IN fec simple with covenants Of general warranty,
Van Rlswiek, the purchaser at tho con1scaton sale.
His wife joined with HIM in the deed
SO The case stood until February g. 1872. when Wal
ZACH died. The compliments then filed thls bill,
claiming that after the seizure, condemnation ami sale
OF the land, as the property OF public enemy
gagged the OF the rebellion nothing renamed IN
him that could be the subj OF sale or conveyance
Without determining where the lee dweils during
the continuance OF the interest OF the purchaser.
al coniscalion SALE whether In tho United states
or in the purchaser subject to be defeated by tho
death OF the offender, IL Va decided that II cannot
dwell In the offender, for I. Il does, then the plain
purpose OF the ConEscation act Is defeated, and
the estate conscated subject whether In tho
hands OF the United States or OF Tho Purchaser to q
paramount right remaining In tho offender. The
heirs take after tue death 81 the offender II Is also
held that amnesty restored what possession OF
tho United states hut could NOS restore what bad
passed from tho government by sale.
Mr. Juetico Strong doiivornd h e,nnionL