The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-25
THE COURTS.


TzE ms AND OUTS OF RAILROAD AND OTHER
LITIoATIoSs.
In the case OF Nichos against Tredwe the decision
BY Judge sedswick the Superior Court should have
read Il OF opinior the defendant was not the as
sgnes. &C. Of the lease, and judgment should be in
his favor on first cause Of actonn This action WAS
brought by Bingham H. Nichols against Samuel L.
rredwcll involving aarge amount Of taxes and as
scssmeas which The plaintiff, as executor, sought TO
make the defendant liable Tor. II will be remembered
hat prior this Tredwell called Nichols to an &C
counting the Surrogae's Court in the matter OF the
estate or his father, Seabury Tredwel who died IN
1865, and in which there has been but one
accounting, and that in the matter Of the
Central Branch, Union Pacific Railroad, In
which Tredwell was plaintiff. Now, before Judge
Larrenore Nichols acted with the defendants lawyers as
counsel, and the only witness who took the stand
endeavor prove the nvaldny OF the contract and
rom whom Mr. W. A Beach had such difficulty to OBJ
ain answers the cross Examination.
This lends color to the remarkable statement made
~ Mr. Mount In opening the railroad suit that ''the
defendants had threatened 10 ruin his client and drive
he steel into his soul = aud also the statement made
~ Mr.. Tredwell that he had the permission OF Judge
William A. Beach say that. during actual trial Of
no railroad case in which he mr. Beach, was acting
ham H. Nichols paid him retainer ia a
iivorce suit Tor his brother William b. Nichols,
xhcn thero other attorneys and Judge Fullerton
IS counsel VINO had Tor some previous had charge
Of IT, and which Mr. Beacn's services would not he
required probably Till fall certainly I'll after the
trial in which he 10 cross examine Mr. Nichols.
Mr. Tredwcl added that the impartial manner III which
Mr. Beach conducted the railroad SUIT was proof that
effect could be produced GU him by douccurs.
MUCH LrriGArfD COVENANT
Edwin b. Strange, in August, 1880, recovered Judg-
nent against a. Freeman Tor sl.o, and IN Decemucr,
1857, executed assignment oil II by an nstrusuent
nder seal TO ). A. Ogden, which he covcnsnted that
ie would no, collect or discharge theJGdement Og-
ie in February, 1868, ASSIGNED The judgment 10 f. H.
Weston. In the assignwcst' he made no alluslon TO
strangcs covenant Il Id March 1865 Strange, notwth-
nandiug suoh covenant, acknowledged satisfaction OF
.lc Judgment receipt OF $40, and It
stufeon satisfied OF record In January 1875 Weston
executed formal assignment OF the judgment To
lanes H. Boyd Each VI these assignments, while re-
'crring specially TO the Judsment also assigned all
moneys that might be had or obtained by means thereof
proceedings to bu had thcreupon, but neither made
reference 10 any covenants OF any prior assignee
Boyd sued Strange IN the First District Court Gaining
To recover, by OF tho latter violation OF his
covenant with Ogden, the amount Of the judgment of
which he had improperly acknowledged satisfaction.
Judge Quinn gave judgment for defendant holding
hat years statute oi Limitation applied. On
plaintiff claimed that under the several assign
ncnts OF the judgment he became vested with as
much right OF action as Ogden II continuing owner
81 the Judgment might nave maintained against strange
lndcr ms covenant and that II could only be barred
after twenty years Chief Justice Daily took this view
ol the case delivering elaborate opinion UNFOLDING
the Analogous TO covenants running with
The landn The majority OF the Court however Judge
Robinson giving the opinion, affirmed tho Judgment
10ldng that such practice that OF giving elect
covenants AS running with the and applies TO such
contained IN transfers oil personal property and
hat interest IN Strange's covenant with Ogden not
collect or discharge the judgment passed TO Weston
~ ogdcn's assignment 10 the latter, and that, there
lore the claim was barred by the six years statute OF
limitations