The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-05-12
DECISIONS.
coUBT-cHAMBEl


Davis Levey.-The motion 10 vacate the order OF.
arrest must be denied. The complaint Is based upon
which the order OF granted In other words
the Of action and the grounds or the
familiar principles; therefore, cannot vacate
the order OF arrest on motion. The may he ad
the calendar II the defendants in prison,
pcrsuant to the provisions Of Rule Is. No costs.
Donohue VS.. ErhardL-l am not satisfied alter read
ing afidavits that the plaintiff not perfectly
secured The wide difference in tho Valuations PLACED
upon the morrgaeed premises by the parties making
adavi,s Tor The pla,n,,ds ana deenoans rcspectyey
renders II impcssbe for me TO that the motglget
property affords so slender security TO the plaintiffs as
TO warrant the appointment Of receiver shall,
therefore, deny the notion giving cavc 10 the plaintiff
TO renew on further papers No costs Of notion
Ellison Laclierman-fherc seems to have been
very great delay the part OF the plaintiffs WILL
however grant the application for the examination OF
Mr.. Francis, on condition that the plaintiffs stpula,e
10 ut the next meeting appointed by the referee
after the examination OF Mr. Francis has been con-
cludcd and proceed with the reference from day 10
unless the referee should IN tie exercise OF his dis
erection. adjourn the same.
Ciahu VS. inlser-As the motion TO vacate the order
OF arrest IS made upon the ai!davits on which said
order granted, all the statements contained IN
those affavs are TO be taken true such beng the
case the decision Of the justice who rranted the order
arrest upon the weight TO be attached To the am
duvits Is like that oil jury conclusive tConter W
Mcnamara, How. 255.) There are certainly very
SUSPICIOUS circumstances disclosed IN the plaintiffs
alidsvils and as the Defendant has male no attempt
explain those circumstances, the Court Is justified ~
assuming that he was unable to do so. Brooks vs.
Slevln, How GIG Motion denied. without costs.wih
leave renew on other aiitavits
Japan Newman.-l wish TO hear counsel more
fully IN regard 10 the application
Prayer VS. Mne.-l am unwilling TO change the place
OF trial in this The motion is therefore Denied
but with costs
Farrell take proof 10 the residence of the plain.
t and to report the testimony with his opinion there
BY Judge Dykeman
Sweet IS. Harrington Motion granted do not
think IL was necessary 70 give notice Of the applica-
tlon.
The National steamship Company VS. seahar.-Bail
reduced to 81 ,00l The rest Of the motion denied.
SUPREME coURr-spEcIAL TERN.
BY Judge Donohue.
Sturgs, &c, Va Drew ct al-FindinRs settled and
SUPERIOR CoURr-spEcIAL TERN.
BY Judge Spc,r.
Sruppman vs. Mullcr.-Ths suit is brought to asccr-
tam tue Of several Denc6caries under the Will
OF Adam Muller and especially whether child OF one
Of ~ married daughters born alive or d ad;
whdUbr the husband acquired vested estate under the
will or her father in her share tenant by the courtesy
she having died ntestatc Decided, that the husband
isented his WHO'S share tenant by the courtesy
that the proof shows his child was born alive and that
his wife had possession OF the premises in question
during marriage Order to be settled note on 10th
BY Chef Justice Mcneil
Kurtz VS.. Lcwcrth. undertaking approved.
Walker VS.. NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. ordered.
O'Brien vs. The Mayor &c.-ordered on short calen-
Einstein vs. Chapman ct al; Humeauin Cum
mns Ct al Farrell vs. Van Tuye; March vs. Priest
vs.. Same; Tone vs. Otter ct aL-Orders granted.
COMMON PLEAs-GENERAL TERM.
Lannigan The Mayor, &c.-Order appealed from
affirmed. with costs opinion by Judge Van Brunt
COMMON PLEAs-spKcIAL TERN
BY Judge J. !. DAILY
Zimmerman vs.. Standardization denied; $40
costs.
waldron vs.. Pontin. Defendant discharged from
arrest uuder Fourteen Days act.
Covert Frost.-Mr. A. Barton Hough appointed
receiver.
Bennett vs. Oppcnhcim McCallum vs. Nicholson;
North River Bank Mills Ludke VS. Conner: Rosen
Blum; Taylor Barry; ThuTby VS. Conner; Eel
kcrsen VS.. Gunncr.-Motions granted.
Samm vs. Haulenbeck. Proceedings dismissed
Drisler vs. Ross. --Order for commission granted
Ferguson Austln-Referred to II. Il. Rowland
Celler VS.. Hewson.-Urder Resulting order.
Clark VS.. Rothermel Motion denied.
Petit W. Burtrand-Ordcr vacating Injunction.