The New York herald., 1876-02-03

Pennsylvania This was an action on policy Of HE
Insurance for 900 issued by tho company upon the
France and in her name The defence WAS that no
euYabe interest was In Mrs France and that date
having been ruptured when in fact he was rupsured
from his birth. The verdict was for tho plain
til below, under the instructions Of the
Court and IL is here insisted that the policy,
although nomiDay In the name OF the deceased, was,
In fact taken out and the premiums paid by Mrs
France and that such being The case there should
have been no recovery, for want OF nsurable in
forest II is also insisted that the sister mar
red woman, In no way dependent upon the deceased,
she was without nsurable interest is also insisted
that the answers made by the deceased when Insured
were warrantes, and being such, If wholly in part
false, there should be recovery The defendants IN
nsst that as TO the disease referred TO-
Ing which the deceased asked there was no con-
ceamen In iact nor was there any as 70 the age OF
the deceased he stated he uncertain a. 10 his
age when asked by the agent OF the company $. Q.
Perkins for plaintiff in error n sharpless for de-
fendants-
No. 100 Turner ct al VS.. Ward ct al-Appeai from
the Circuit Court for the Eastern District OF Aichi-
gan.-This was a suit TO recover Of Turner Co. the
amount OF a bill or goods sold to them by tho appel
lees the plaintiffs below seeking TO have property
which had been covered by chatte mortgage applied
creed by the Court below and the brought here
and submitted the printed briefs OF the parties the
sen taiions made by them II false, we're not shown TO
have been known TO the member OF the hrm making
them, and that the Court should have exacted such
proof before rendering the decree made c. +. Crosby
for appellants; Ashley Pond for appelees.
No 134 Eyster VS.. Gan ct n.-Error to the Supreme
Court of the Territory Of Cooradorhs was an action
OF eectment brought against Eyser to recover posses
sion OF certain lots in Denver City. Eyster was a
tenant OF one Mcclure, who morgaged to the defen
dants Having forecosed and obtained the title
OF the morgagor they oused the tenant by eectmont
II Is here insisted that the Court erred in sustaining
the foreclosure proceedings against Mcclure when he
was a bankrupt and the assignee was not mado
party and that therefore, the Plaintiffs in error have
no title as against the tenant in possession under him.
John A Wells for plaintiff error; ShellabarKer 4
Wilson for defendants
No l33 Smeltzer VS.. White-Error to the Circuit
Court for the District OF lowaln this case the defend
IN error recovered upon alleged OF the
genuineness or forty eight county warrants purport
ing TO have been issued by 0Brien and other counties
which he purchased Of the plaintiff. The warranty
that they regularly issued and genuine
county warrants White brought suits against the
ties, and failing TO get judgment the warrants,
because OF rregularty In their ISSUE in being without
the county SEAL had to the warranty OF the
plaintiff II is here insisted that the Court erred in
holding that the warrants required seal; but II Il Is
true that they invalid without seal II was de-
feet patent 10 the purchaser as well as to seller and
therefore II within the warranties G. Par
sons for plaintiff in error; Ashton Wilson for &C.
fendant.
strong and David O. Harrington, OF Philadelphia,
Pa admitted TO practice as attorneys and coun
sellers OF this court On motion Of Mr.. j. b. Sanborn,
Henry r. hasterson or St Paul, Minn, was admitted
TO practice attorney and counsellor OF this court
No l34 Christian Z. Eyst0e plaintiff In error, VS..
Thomas and James W. CAM argument Of d, this his
plaintiff in error The Court declined TO hear further
argument IN this cause.
No. 1856 william w. Lathrop, assignee, &C., appel
liant, VS. Samuel Drake and John Drake Jr executors,
&C., ct al-This argued by Mr.. ID. G. Harrng
ton and Mr. j. Carroll Brewster Of counsel for the ap-
peant and by Mr. W. II. Armstrong for the appeecs
No. l37..-Charlos D. Maxwell, plaintiff in error, vs.
the District OF Columbiarhc argument in this cause
commenced by Mr.. F. p b. Sands, OF counsel for
the plaintiff in error, and continued by Mr.. E. L. Stan
ton for tho defendant in error.
Adjourned until tomorrow.