The New York herald., 1876-02-29
DECISIONS.
SUPREME coURT-cHAMBERs
By Judge Lawrence,

Morgan and another VS. Mortimer ct al ; Emo vs.
Burche, Nos l, and 3; matter of the application
OF the directors Of the New York Coral and Shell Mar
BILE Company for dissolution; Trotter New York
Coral Shell Marble Company; matter OF Barr Gaines
Heath; Browne VS.. Davis ct al-Granted.
visscher Greenbank Akali Company. Motion
for bill ofpartlculars granted without costs.
Willimantic Trust Company vs. Warren-This order
seems TO be correct except that the further examna-
ton of Birch may be had If desired and the blanks
the order should be filed up
People, &c, VS.. Fowler, ct Alas the counsel for
the plaintiffs has given notice that he objects to the
consideration OF the supplementary affidavit served
upon him and presented to the Court | shall order a
rcargument of this motion. The motion will be placed
Tuesdays calendar if counsel desire for reargu-
ment.
Loan. Fund, &c, Company.-l9 How. 7. r., 5l5
sustains the objection made by the defendants coun-
sci the notice of the entry of Judgment The omis
sion to state the clerks office IN which judgment
entered prevented tho notice from operating as lin
itation OF tho defeudants time TO appeal. (See 10
How, 515l If this question had not beon passed
upon in tho case just referred 10 ! confess should
have felt great doubts as to the validity OF the obec
ton, but as the point there deliberately exam
ined must follow that decision No costs Of this mo-
ton
Hascall VS. Illinois and St Louis Bridge Company
The effect of allowing the amendments sought for
would bo 10 entirely change the nature of the action,
and while such an amendment may be within the
power OF the Court the power should not in my judg-
ment bo exercised code, Sec l7a) Motion is de-
nicd, with costs
motion should be granted The roeree seems to me to
have acted correctly IN refusing TO open the case after
after defendant had paid his fees BESIDES, upon read
ing the affidavit OF Mr. Risley, am by no means clear
that there any error in the referees findings as 10
the law Of Indiana No costs
Matter OF Field-The injunction is confirmed and
the wife Of the unatc is appointed as committee.
cannot however approve of the bond submited-nrst,
because its recital Of dates are ncomplco and second
because OF the blanks in the bond The bond was pre-
maturely executed and should be re-executed.
Helbrun VS. Racey-rhis seems to he proper case
for the appointment OF receiver The motion for that
purpose Is granted, with costs.
Sherwood VS. Globe Insurance Company OF Chicago -
! Motion denied, with costs. Memorandum.
Brllion Brsdnor and nnother-Sct down Tor trial
on tho 10th day OF March, 1876. Memorandum.
Eldridge vs. Maclay ct aL-Motion granted, with
/ costs Memorandum.
| Frost VS. Van Loon.-I am OF opinion that Mr.
/ Leyuc tho referee lrst appointed and who seems TO
have resigned for good aud sufficient reasons is
titled lis fees up TO the time when be resigned, and
the motion to compel the new rceroe TO deliver the re-
: port Is therefore denied.
Prizes VS. Conen.-I wish to see the papers on which
tho previous motion for receiver was denicd.
BY Judge Barrett.
Rucker vs. Mead think that a roargument was
we'll granted and that the motion shouu prevail on
payment OF the costs which have accrued since the
original nterposcd and $40 costs OF motion.
Memorandum.
Matter Of fCiman-Aiter further very careful consid-
Grafton Of this matter, think that viewing II in its
length and breadth, and considering the position in
which the matter is and the complications which
might arise from death or further litigation tho order
proposed ought to be granted and that although the
question Of power is not free from doubt thorc is SUM-
ccnt color OF authority to warrant the granting Of the
J
/ By Judge Donohuc.
Muller VS.. Mucr.-Grantod.
| Matter of Spohi.-Wrt dismissed.
Munster VS. Sowards.-I wish to see counsel.
Clews VS. Pano-On the receiver Cling bond with
two surces in the sum specified in the order bond to
| contain the names OF sureties Motion granted
! Willis va Buffalo, New York and Erie Railroad Com
BY Judge Brady.
| Freligh VS.. Board OF Poco.-Opinion.
SUPREME coURT-sPEcIAL TERM.
nv Iodga Rarratt
Mason Hamln Organ Company VS.. Bancroft and
another Order granted.
Bagicy vs. the Mayor, &c, Gleason VS.. Hubbard
&c.-MotIons for new trials denied.
Brdsall VS.. Fowler, ct al.-Case settled
wisl VS. Bonchardt; Mcstea VS.. matthews; Sinclair
va Oaklcy.-0pinons.
Vosc vs. COwdrey. Order signed
Stenbach W. Relief Fire Insurance Company Find.
ings signed.
SUPERIOR C0URT-SPEcIAL TERM.
BY Judge sedgwick
OtO vs. Rynders-0rder for Judgment
Thurber VS.. Jacobs.-Order appointing George w.
sturm VS. Great Western Insurance Company $40
costs for each deposition actually read should be
taxed under the stipulation the usury IN eacn action is
the same as " the dispositions were taken therein
kurshecdt va Narheim, OF al, Nos and 2-Refer-
ence ordered
Kursbeedt VS.. Meyer, OF al-Reference ordered.
Clutch VS.. Crowley.-Decree signed
Clutch va Crowley.-order canceIng undertak-
Riehmonde ct al VS. Dwyer; Farrell vs. Van suyic ct al
Sauder VS. Holman ct al Stokes VS.. Rcckuagel;
Moody. vs. Andrews; Clutch VS.. Crowley Orders
granted
BY Judge Sanford.
Smith vs. Grow et al-Judgmcnt granted
COMMON PLEAs-sPEcIAL TERM.
by Judge Robinson
Waters ct al vs. Crawford. d.-Mouon denied SEQ
memorandum.
Taylor VS.. Keller, Jr-Retcrcnce ordered
Boese ct al vs. Smith ct al-Complaint dismissed
Fucheur VS.. Crandall Motion denied
Koesting We. Leak; Butes vs. Pottingill Motions
granted.
SUMMARY OF LAW CASES.
In the matter OF william H Field, recently adudged
10 be lunatic, Judge Lawrence yesterday confirmed
NJ tho rofaRee and apnOfufpd tho