The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-05

that any injustice been done 10 the do
PENDANT nor that any OF his legal rights hvae been in
friDged Motion Is therefore denied with $40 costs.
Wyman VS. Sehappert and anoiher.--As the cause Of
action and the ground OF the appear be the
same the motion To vacae the order OF will be
denied without costs. As the defendants custody
the may be advanced upon The calendar for trial.
pursuant 10 rule Is. No costs.
Buck master VS. Meyer and another.-I have Indicated
upon the margin OF the sienographcr's minutes my
Buttcrned Va klaber ct aL-rhc plaintiffs
make ,,o o.. prma ia a.co case , sos
the papers presented in the OF his dscre
ton granted the preliminary order The affidavit and
read the part OF the defendants fail to deny
all the equities OF the complaint and as cannot ON
this motion matter Of fact that the whole
nurance TO the plaintiffs proceeds from the rubbing
machine as Is alleged in the defendants anidavit the
injunction must be continued pcndente lite (McKson
vs. Lee, l.obt, s5o) Injunction continued, with $40
costs Il abide event
saou,on vs. Naturalization denied without costs
tsee Remarks OF Judge Rosekans, % n. r., 23S
In tho matter OF George Alexander Brown an in
iantlt Is not disputed that the infant Is The child oil
the petitioner, Adcine Brown. The claim which
made 10 the custody Of the child by the respondent
cannot be sustained None OF the provisions OF ths
act OF 1878 complied with at the time that tho
spondcnt alleges that the child was given to her IL
cannot then DO pretended that the respondent has
adopted The child. claws 1878 p 1861 After very
careful examination of the voumn0us testimony In
this case cannot refrsn from the conclusion that
the petitioner never did give tho child 10 the respond
enL Under these circumstances follows that the petit
TONER, the mother, is entitled TO the custody oil the
child, and II Is accordingly ordered.
hungcrford VS.. Saniord.-Whilc have no doubt AZ
to the power OF tho Court TO grant the amendment
asked for think that this motion should be denied on
the ground that the defendant has been guilty oil aches
IA not moving soouer. By his papers the defendant
shows that he learned OF the defence sought to
pleaded, early as last December, and the motion
not made until the called Tor triaL-Aotion 70
amend is dcned with $40 costs.
Matter or McCahL-lf the counsel In this case have
any points TO present upon tins MOTION, dcsro them
TO do so soon AS possible
Mcndei vs. Schuster.--As the plaintiff is party "a
the dspossesson proceeding, am Of tho opinion thai
ttnN harat ha
II the agreement alleged IN tho complaint
made between tho plaintiff and the Do
tho proceedings before the Justice, and II valid the
plaintiff as defendant in those proceedings, must pro-
pending enormously decides to the effect Of the
agreement the proper remedy OF the plaintiff Is by GER
70 Howe eex nI Iso seldom hn
SsS Notion TO vacatc the Injunction granted, with
TayIsr a. Mabie.-As tho item Of $5,o 900 contained
in the bill OF particulars is the mentioned Ia the
agreement dated November 80, 1874, which agreement
executed by the plaintiffs aud the defendant, Ma
bic, reason Tor ordering further bill OF par
tcuars The plaintiff must have understood the items
signed Tho Agreement The motion IS therefore denied.
Fogg VS. Edwards-Tho motion for leave to nlc
a supplemental must be denied First, the
swer proposed In conflict with the terms Of tho spu
ation Second the proposed supplemental answer Is not
consistent with the original answer, nasmuch MS IL
denies liability for items which admitted by the
original answer to be due (sce "a Barb 1857 Third,
to the extras at all dependent tho result
the arbitration between the defendant and the rail-
road company Motion denied with $40 costs, to abide
event.
Bennett VS. Wilson-rhc motion to vacale tho at
achmcnt must be denied as the motion IL based upon
the PLAINTIFFS paper, aud upon afidavIts on tho
part OF the defendant Every allegation In those papers
must for the purposes OF the motion DO taken as true
The affidavit which The attachment issued seems
to TO present which the Court possesses
the power grant attachment. II the action be
regarded for money had and received. (Scc Code,
sec 20; Gordon vs. Hartelic, 81 n r., l04 and
los As TO the point that If the action be regarded
one for money had and received the summons being
for relief it is sufficient to say such objectoni
only be made available, II IT all,
on direct motion for that purpose The
ment do not see how can look into the question
whether the summons is correct In form on motion
costs
BY Judge Larremore
Oliver va Morrson.-Let counsel attend Tor settle
mcnt Of order Juno g. at ten A. NJ
by Judge Donohue
Beggs vs.. Pagan; Brustor vs. Borst-Motions do
In tho matter OF sxty-nith street. SO Marvin va
Prentice. -Orders granted.
In tho matter OF Metx, &c-The relator II entitled
| 10 the custody OF the children
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
WAsnlxGrox, juno 4, 1870
The following among the decisions Of the
Supreme Court
No. e. Gilbert Woodruff ct al va Benjamin y.
Hough at. a.-ln error the Circuit Court Tor tho
Northern District OF Illinois. John Allen having con
tracted with the Supervisors OF the county OF Wnnc
bago Illinois, Tor the building Of c0unty jail, maoe
another contract with DESCENDANTS In error who were
plaintiffs below Tor all the wrought iron work neces
sary tho construction OF the building. Tho plain
tls here, who wero defendants below, became
sureties Tor Allen by written guarantee that he
would perform his part Of the conract-that u.s. would
pay lie had promse these sub tractors In The
progress Of tho work differences arose between Allen
and his growing out OF the refusal OF
the Supervisors to accept the work furnished by the
latter, the ground that WAS not IN compliance with
NJ vtlh hA
and with defendants IN error Aftcr much VI
the work doue and put IN place Il was condemned
and the work abandoned by defendants ~ error who
brought this suit against Aliens surctics tor mis-
failure to pay, AS they had guaranteed he would.
The assigned relate 10 the charge OF tho Cours
and The refusal 10 charge requested by tho plaintiffs
In error.
did not treat Hugh and Butler. tho subcontracsors
under Allen hound by all Aliens contract with tho
Supervisors But while they accepted tho specinca-
tons Tor the wrought iron work which werc In Aliens
contract with the Supervisors they did not agree 10 DO
bound by the supervisors acts in accepting or reject
ing the work as coming up TO these specifications.
This Mr. Allen did ia his contract with them and no
doubt thus has led TO tho present controversy The Su-
pervsors reserved tho right decide between them
and Allen whether the work conorn,ed tho specica-
tons. Alien reserved such power his contractwth
defendants. These latter had right the event oil
difference that subject, 10 have the difference sct-
lied by court OF law, and Allen run that RISK II hc
rejected any d their work. But the supervisors could
reject work without such hazard. because Allen had
agreed 10 submit 10 their Judgment In case Of such
difference
IL " helu tnat the INSTRUCTION OF the Oout was sui-
hcicnI the fact that Alien, under the circumstances
of tho and consequence OF tho Jucgmcnt VIII bo
loser 10 the several thousand dollars doea
show the instructions OF the Court 10 DO wrong
III there II committed by the Jury.
This Court will not retry the case on that account
The mistakes OF jures beyond the Jurisdiction
here Affirmed.
| Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion.
No. so. Henry NJ. Neblctt vs. James H. Macfarland--
Appeal from The Circuit Court for the Disrics Of
Louisiana - he allegation OF this Is
fined single point In his brief the counsel for the
appellant SAY s:-.srnc Court erred ing the
pay ment Of our bond condition precedent 10 tho re-
convey ance OF tho plantation sct forth
ton trial; and tnis ground md irois this
point OF the decree do appeal and ask Tor relief"
The action brought TO aside tho conveyance
OF n plantation IN LOUISIANA, made by Mcfarland TO
the appellant, Nebelt upon the allegation that the
conveyance was obtained BY the fraudulent acts and
representations OF Nebctt aud his father. Tho only
consideration gwen protested to be given by Nebctt
for tho conveyance the cancellation Of = certain
bond Tor the Of $l4 s6i 81 executed ny Maciar-
land TO sterling Neblct the father, and alleged to be
tho nrouariy Of Hurry Nchleli Iha Clurl b..