New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-07-03
THE SUIT AGAINST FERNANDO WOOD.


THE QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ALLEGED SALE
OF AN OFFICE UNDECIDED, But THE SUIT DIS
MISSED.
The suit of Ogden against Wood, tried be-
fore Judge sedgwick in Superior Court Special Term,
last Spring was decided yesterday. ogden judg-
ment creditor OF n. Hr Fowler who was Corporation
Attorney in 1868 1854 and part Of 1863 The plaintiff
Fowler being the chief witness for him. charges that
Fowler obtained this Office by promising TO pay Fer
papdo Wood s. OC0 year FOR the first two years and
half the profits down. and that Fowler did actually pay
81 600 down and in all, about $4,000, 10 Mr. Wood
He claims that as Fowler insOyeut, and these
ments were unlawful the creditors had right to follow
this money into Br Woods hands and recover it, sir
Wood denied absolutely any suen bargain or receipt Of
uoucy. Judge scdgwick does not pass upon the ques
tor of fact but holds that if the plaintiffs story and Nj
Fowlers be true they have not sufficiently traced the
pronsrty 10 enable them 70 follow IL in this action
After stating the facts he decides substantially as fol
lows:
There ATTEMPT to trace The money go as fund
excepting 1t alleged that deposit OF 81 300 made IN
January 1868, was par ~ the moneys. IL is manHes'
that the defendant IN the Judgment Fowler, had no IN
ALLEGED by hn ON the unlawful agreement 10 which lie
testified he party, and could not nave 0een rccoN
hell in trust for him Furthermore by the statute the
property out OF which Judgment is 20 be satisfied must
be nrOpeFty in the hands Of the thru party NO such
property the hands Of the defendant either by PROOF
o. by Argument Various sums OF money were alleged
plaintiffs counsel argues that there is presumption OF
law The money having been shown III the hands OF Tie
defendant that il remained in that state until the DC
PENDANT proves the contrary This would appear 70 me
10 be q mlsal pcatoD OF the presumption OF cOhuh'
nance. = The statute, therefore does not
support the setOn for the reason that the panh does
not that the defendant has in his possession any OF
the allie moneys their proceeds Under the statute
well any other proceeding IN equity 10 conpei the
appropriation Of money or property 20 the satisfaction OF
iud mont there II reason TO doubt that money, OF
anything into WHICH ii bias been turned or ino Which 1t
has been invested which can be traced and treated IN
equity, OF II IL the money itself. can be used to
sntsfy the Judgment But in creditors SUITS there must
be something specific that 10 IT, either III law or IN
eouity the plaintiff judgment or execution on tie hhng
OF the bill and The appointment OF receiver, VIII create
a lien or make title On the law OF this case ana u
opmon that the action cannot be maintained and that
the alleged money bling traced or attempted 70 be-
the plantis rght rested after the ascertanment be-
came pOssibe action for tort there are any
fsct which would support such an action The decision
IA made upon the motion TO dismiss The complaint at the
end OF the testimony, and the Judgment Will be founded
upon result OF that motion without further findings
Of fact