, 1876-01-27
Another Batch Of Supreme Court
Decisions.
Liability of Contractors. What Consti-
tutes an Escrow.
Final Argument in the Tax Gases
To-day.
Nev Dills Filcl...l,ankruptcy Proceed
iugs..-NYilllan Arcldcacon.
Record of Judgments and New Suits.
DECISIONS.
LtAErL1rx Or CONTRACTORS.

-.. nm NJ ti,osc doc;dc,t rnc,pttv ,,v tto E,,
..o,oo t,onrt mi In # lin rourt diat,nrnf,l,o
;,,a diffoTcnco boswoen cont, octors md aetyanta
'.,1 J.n,cd lin rca,c,,ivo 1,,h,I,tte. of oac f,r
.;,.,o. !, noraona u,,to, t,on,. H. anne,rcd
IT,, ronac,, I'm annc,1co hrourbt unit arnnat
,,ss n,,clla,ta 1roaa 1Jo1c anl ,,owo yor lnm.
49, ra.oivoJ mills vorh1ru for 1roto = nroe. In
s:s.,na ,o.r , ,~.lI ql,o w,n ,xo. ,,n.,fo ,,l
~, ~, III, ,-o,b;r, ,u arn, n, b-,,o,t mil
~ 49,. .a,nyoro1 o,oInSt nj, III ,,oyono,,to l,a,a
T. ~ Mrv. werc nnntracIors vim ,udor,oot 10
a1r.y.tc for tbo founda.tone Of a building for
i,oro and vorc n ho naia a ncrccn.ago
.,s Nv ~ roat =, t,o ,o,,or ri,ov o,ona orornrod
,ho r,borc,a nnd noid tl,o,n AM, tl,nv o1ona
wv 49,, ...s..,..s -. ~. ....,. ns"s
cfolc'6cu ''u aat'e''.h!ou VI t"o "o'A' i''"o
had no connection with Tho excavations futthor
slan to pay tho contractors tho stipulated psioo
rhcn Tho work was nnisl,od.
n,J,o .r,ror,o f,,r-, l,o1d th.t 1,,,o l. ,to,u
NV ,,",s, o1' m sa'. '"v ~, .'o'o
snl9 "efe Haoio 70 'ohson thas thoy "efo
soltractorB, mud uos sotvautB OF RoWe. Iho
nalo wns TINT, wl.tlo maetes was responsible for
- ,rt", ,ad oaa.,,a,,a ,,. 49, ,,atno
'l.as pas's wv - naI 49,, oo As' . ~ ~ @o'.
Of certain work Tor hts uae a'1'i benolit waa not
liable for injuries arising in tho porioraanco OF
rci, work. One who contracted 10 do ppecilln
.;,ro of wor,, fnrnah,rv lin o,,, ,a.;a..nca and
S.,,.,n', tta VOL, ,;,er o,t;ra,7 -; ,cc,,,,,,,.n
fx:eusli's '4o "o1A ti'uet e"t'Ae'f ~ aeeoAu"neo
With Lib own ideas, Or IN accordanco
NTH a plan previously given hin by
,hc person for vi,om tle 5oth was
souo ,,,ho,, ,oro snt,,cct IN .;,c or,1or, NJ ,ho
aoto' "''No"s 0s"1f '1"!oe' ~ VIZ ~ i"oA ~ 'Ao
A1tcr III respect 10 suo oota'lb Oh TUG "ofA, was
slonrly a contractor an1 not u aerv1tt. IIlbro
VT no doubt but tint lIHio & Moss nero coi,-
,,.,,,r. anil ,,ot Horvnnts, Tn nr,,pr. tl,an tn
.,T, nowo i;.h,. i, wora ,oro noo ,ocoaasrv
u"Ho i'o"o 'i'ois ~ "o.'u n"'o "eo' "oeeo'"tS
10 provo TINT no Aaa Tlolateu dt!ts Fc3tlhs Oh
him toward 1ongcn. This had not boon doue,
md IL yas error to find aga,net Howe,
sno,,,,r o,,,oo.,o, ,vns ,,,oIo lint tho o,,ioc.
w.. u'".>". oA 49,, w.. 49,. 'ss ~ ~.
Tho Conrt below by way Of demurrer, motion III
objection did not 80 to tho Butllcisucy Of the
aoclaratiout but Of tho evieneo. 1t alleged that
III we're guilty Of nogllEencc: and that AnIo
b bloEs were heIvanth OF Howe. A. do
nnIror, therefore, could not DO sustained
le It was o question Of sul!lricncy OF evidence
so Bhow whether !soNo Ind bcon Negligent. Ono
u the grounds for now trial "Gs tlas tho
Ferllct "aa aRainBt tho ovidonce, md that Was
tutt!ctont. 3le evldencn did not support tho
ferdfos, and new trial aiould hRvo bocn
granted. Tho Judgment Wna roycraed ni,d fiin
:aso tei'astlcd. Hitchcock II Dupee ior appel
auts, nnd ". W. Ieraliis, fof nTpellocs.
WHAT CONSTITUTES AN E'e1uw.
IN tho caso OF AIfroa sklnhor etT'. VI. lroato
.. DskeE ct nj. tho bnlicme Court construed n
contract. and defined what an escrow IL. Tie
M acts woro that ono Huntington IN scptsmGor'