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



In the matter OF the OF Durfce.--First. The
petition should be signed by the committee In person.
authority VI the Court The committee may take his
ADVICE but such advice must reported to aud ncted
upon by the Court oclore me committee WIN DC jussi
should nominate the ieieree. Third, see no reason
Tor authorizing clerk on these p1pers; the com.
mttcc can the work himself. Fourth. There should
be a report TO the advIsablity OF the salo OF tho
patents, &C., before the order 10 IN sce
was justified by the evidence. an, therefore, con.
strained hold that the representations made,
alleged BY plaintiffs, and have nothing TO add TO
my previous memorandum TO their falsy. The
motion the order OF arrest must, therefore,
b. denied. with $40 costs and disbursements.
Kellum, &C., vs. Tho Mayor &c.-The plaintiff was
not only justified IN bringing the suit but would have
been dercct II she had tailed 70 do Her defeat
stances IL would be harsh exercise Of discretion TO
muct the estate beyond the ordinary costs OF the
Had the verdict been the other way would not have
thought Of granting an extra allowance against the CITY,
Motion denied. without costs.
HIborn VS. Kobbc. and Gilman, &C., va Gilman
BY Judge Lawrence.
In the matter Of The petition OF Charles H. Whalen,
&c Granted
ANYWAY vs. David-Tne jurisdictonal points raised by
counsel as understand this case. have been passed
upon adversely the defendant by the General Term.
Ii am in orrcct In this view shall follow the dec
sion the Justice at the Special Term the question
OF Jurisdiction Assuming that Jurisdiction exists the
examination discoscs Tor tho appointment of
receiver webb vs. Orcnna . Abbott "; Beamish Va.
Hoyt, Robinson. 307 Bailey vs. Lane, ID Abbott 33
Mver case. Abbott. 416. Let order DO entered
appointing Avery j. Brown, receiver
III tho matter OF the certificate oil Incorporation OF
the Orient Cluh-Iho certificate docs not appear 10
state the OF the managers officers OF the club
Tor the year under the corporation is required
By section vi the Laws OF 1875.
Cowen VS.. McCunn,-rhis motion Is prantcd See
r. s.. PIP 175 ana l76 Al and 40, 9th edition;
Graham vs.. Ripley, IL How, 3i3 3l4; Merscrean Va
Oliver W. Morrison III the defendant desires an in.
junction think that he should lilo cross bill or CON-
plant
Banta vs. Kent-It would appear from the brief OF
counsel that the cases may turn somewhat upon the
force to be gwen " ordinance oi the
Common Council The ordinance IS not set forth IN
the statement Of facts presented, nor has II been
proved Before deciding the cases Wish 10 have the
ordinance proved in somo form so that the record
DAVIS Va Lcvey.-Any application OF u motion for
rc.areumcnt must be on notice 20 the other side
Wallace x Sons VI. Caste.--CounseI must submit
briefs, showing The grounds which they respectfully
clam and resist the various items stricken ont by the
Cork the taxation OF the bill OF costs such briefs
may be submitted within one week IRON June i 1876
In tho matter OF Rafery.-rhc power OF attorney
read upon this motion purports TO have been acknow.
edged before commissioner Of deeds Tor the stale 81
New York the State of California The certificate Of
the Secretary OF state required by soc OF chapter
400 Laws OF 1850 Is not suboined by tho clerk
Ia order that the certificate may be supplied.
Cutting W. steyens--Schwart being defendant ~
the action and having obtained his subject "a the
mortgage &c. do not see especially as lac was heard
upon for the appointments o the receiver,
hvw he claim that he not bound TO obey the order
or avoid tho penalty Of being IN contempt for refusal
10 obey It, Ais counsel on the argument stated. as
understood HIM, that there answer to the
ing papers, aud desired leave 10 present an affidavit
I snail give him opportunity to do Such Aida
VII must be served Oh the pizntfs attorneys within
three dsys from the nng
Heilbrun VS. Fox.-The affidavit Of Benjamin Estes,
which purpors have been made on the oh OF May,
Ia not certified by notary or commissioner OF deeds
AS the view which have taken OF this motion renders
the affidavit OF slight matcrialIty, shall allow the
affidavit 10 be verified before settling tho order and
shalt dispose OF tho motion on the papers As they
stand. The aiidaviis read In support oi the motion
for resale lar they tend TO SHOW that the pricc
obtained was Inadequate, do not In my opinion, bring
the within the rule laid down IN where In
adequacy OF price has boon held 10 be GROUND for
vacaiing the sale american Insurance Company vs.
Oakley, Paige, $50; Duncan Doid, Page, ~,
harD Vs. Ludlow, ssndiord, SOL The only important
question In the " whether tho defendant,
Fox entitled notice OF the and place OF
sale He had appeared In the action, but had made
default putting In answer. Notice Of the appll-
cation Tor judgment, &c. Of the taxation of the
costs had been served upon him. 1 do