The Centre reporter. [volume] (Centre Hall, Pa.) 1871-1940, 1877-06-28

judge Van Worst has just made 4 d5al-
sion lu the Supreme court cf New No-z.
thaI is amer our own heart precisely. We
know il is right, we tc,.cvc s. isA good
law also, and wc ,raI; Z, wi,l not be ovC->
ruled. This is ;ho case
In l~Gb Charles r. 4. Damb,aana.
Philip j. P5Hor and Herman Schulting
were engaged be business ~ New, York un-
DOR the firm name 81 &. i. a. Dam Hmaua
& Co. Mr.. Dambmanu loaned 90 Schulz
.ug $1,000. the latter promising 10 refund
tho money when Eo t4o4.4 be- Alic 10 do
so. Some two years amer this $500 o! the
money llus loaned was repaid q release Of
any further claim Tor payment % the ball
ange being given on such payment MT.
DAmbmaun claimed tia: such release
Was executed By him unlcra mistake asto
the material facts, Schul.ing having rep
resented 90 him that bis property was
barely sufficient 10 pay the money be had
borrowed, whereas, As alleged, be was
worth AZ that timo over so, ,uOu over and
above his debts ~ that tjmo his property
90 tAis amount having been concealed and
pa. 1ai O: HE possession So as 20 give the
color OF truth 20 bis statements as 10 what
hc was worth. The complaint, the sub
stance of which has already been publish.
Cd. r0ei,o5 az length The transfer and sale
OF the stock q goods bg.our ring tn the trm.
RgEregaiing $500, ,gSl, in which SCEulilnE
bad ono>thrd interest
Under this state al facts suit was
brought 80 recover 5000. with interest,
the balance Of tho loan. The answer put
IN by NJ Sohgllinr is that daring the
timc Fpectcj he owed 10 various parties
and firms about 81 10000, and that his
creditors, including {. J. \, DamhmannI
j. Co, accepted n compromise G! their
claims. The following agreement was
made with the latter Grn. We, the uH,I
icTaguod, agree, IN consideration Of 81
paid 10 us, 90 discharge II. Schgl!ing from
tho lcga, payment Of the money leaned tol
him, February, 1856, said SClgltlng Civ
ing his moral obligation 10 refund theI
sxil money. In part or whole, rs his mcRnsl
will allow in future The legal force of
this moral obligation was one Of the
strongest points raised in tho litigation.
The case was tried before Judge Van
Worst, holding Supreme CouJ:, Special
Term. Judge Van Worst gave his dec.
sion In thcCase, declaring the release void |
and ordering judgment for the balance oil
the loan. After rcoiting the facts Of the
case given above, Judge Van Worst says
that he does not regard tho release as an
absolute discharge OF the debt In question,
as there was substituted moral duty for
payment in the the event thst the debtor
should Aflerward acquire means sufficient
TO enable him TO pay the claim IN whole or
in part Tho agreement to discharge from
tho legal payment he holds 10 have been
in fact conditioned upon the debtors 81
promise 20 refund tho money loaned
should he acquire tho means in the future
10 do so; that IL he did not acquire such
means then ali legal claim was Abandoned;
but if he did, the legal claim existed, 20 be
hy action IN the event that the
coucioucc oC tho d0htor refused 10 recoG-
nizo the obligation 90 repay the money,
and that the paper in truth is TO be regards
ed Hs an agreement not TO enforce tho lc-
gal liability so long rs tho debtor was
without means 10 pay. He holds, further,
that there was an evident concoalmont by
Of his means, and upon this fact
and those already given, ho ordered a
Judgment for the plaintiff as stated
This dicision is worthy Of being written
,n the door posts Of the halls Of justice,
ma the churches, too ? We commend
/ to Christiaas and sinners alike. Let
hem nil understand that a moral obliga-
ion is legal one also, and that tho law
top in to quicken mans conscience whom
,o shelters himself behind the miserable
,1cuso that ho is not legally bound to
,cop his promise.