The New York herald., 1877-08-29
THE DEsRAISMEs ESTATE.

IdE OEShAloMES ESTATE.
The referee 70 whom vas referred tho disputed
claims of Counsellor George Mott Tor 81 400 against
the Desraismos estate has reported adversely him,
judgment being granted against him for $3.50 17.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
DECISIONS.
wAsHIsGrox. August 81, 1877.
The following decisions have been rendered by the
United States supreme Court
THE vRgEpMAx's SAVINGS hank.
No l60 Robert p. Dodge, Philip A. Darneile,
Emile Darneille aud william l. Dunlap appellants,
VI. Tho Frecdmnn's Savings aud Trust Company
Appeal Supreme Court OF the District Of Co.
lumbia The Frecdman's Savings and Trus. Company
the l7th day Of May, 1879 exhibited It's bill OF
complaint In the Supreme Court Of the District Co
lumba alleging that IL owned held certain unpaid
ana overdue promssory notes mado by the defendant,
Dodge, and that certain real estate In the city
OF Georgetown, which had been conveyed In
trust TO the Defendants Jones and Darneilie.
TO secure the payment OF said notes. had
been unlawfully and frauduontly released from the
operations of the deed Of trust and had been
veyed by defendant Dodge to defendant Darneile who
had conveyed II to the defendant Dunlop In trust for
the benefit OF the WHO OF tho defendant Darnello The
bill prays the cancellation Of the roease and also
OF tho other convoyanccs; for sale of all the properly
the proceeds to the payment OF the notes; dam
ages II any should be found, against Jones and Dar
neie tor judgment against Dodge for any balance OF
said notes remaining unpaid and fer gcucral reliei.
Tho defendant Dodge answered, admitting the making
OF tho and OF the deed Of trust thcm
but insisted that the notes had been paid and exn-
guished through an arrangement between him and
Thomas $. Huntington Tor the purchase of one
OF the pieces OF property Included in The trust,
nd hat q n Ter
they were due aud had been paid Tho other defend
ants made no defence and decree pro confcss was
the pleadings and evidence, and the Court below at
Special Term, dismissed the bill From this decree
Judgment reversed and decree entered according
to the prayer 0f tho bill Tho case Is here appeal
by tho defendants from that decree.
The de;enco ress entirely upon the allegation that
the notes made py Dodge In January 1869, were paid
IN January, 1870
II conceded IN tho pleadngs that Dodge made the
notes; that the properly described In the trust deed
conveyed To Jones aud Darneile 10 secure their
payment that the just debts and The
deed . valid security for their payment Why,
then, should not the security Of the trust deed
remain TO the holder OF The notes! The answer IS
that the notes have been pad therefore the trust
deed has discharged its office aud the security by law
revers TO or Is held for tho benefit OF its original
owner Tho principle Of law involved IN this PROPOSE
tion plain to justify discussion ennd hence IT is
that the defence which seeks 10 cancel tns security,
rests upon the sole ground that the notes have been
paid
portion OF tho evidence contained In the bill of
cepIons consists OF the deductions made by William
s. Huntington. Evidence OF this character was gwen
by each party and admitted. Notwithstanding tho OBJ
Jcction OF the other No principle can be found to
has, has long W been settled thu. the declAra-
tions made by the holder OF chat'el or
promissory note, while he hold II, arc not compe-
tent In upor it, In relation 10 IL Nv
subsequent owner. This Was settled IN the State o!
New York in the case OF Page vs. Caywin Hill r.,
36l, ana IL now admitted 10 DO sound doctrine; aud
that the party Is since deceased makes no difference
Bleach va Wise, Hill, 62); or tnat the transfer Is
truc of the declarations OF mortsage Earl Ciutc.
Abb G.. app. Dec; y; or Of the asslgnor Of JUDI;
n. r., l4l) or OF judgment Debtor Il Demo, 2U2).
Assuming that Huntington was inc owner or holder
Of these notes, ns declarations are not
these declarations be admitted IN evidence
on the theory tnnt Huntington was tho owner Of the
estate described IN the trust deed and III It's actual
possession. lie never had legal title, but occupied
ono OF tho houses described In The trust decd por
lion the time a tenant paying rent, anu during
subseq uent PERIOD a. II is claimed, under q verbal
agreement 10 tchase II from Dodge by paying the
NOES 10 question: paying interest on 'ne notes instead
land are competent evidence-hrsI as against those
cuiming the land under MIN. (wsrring vs.. Warren,
mans Bank claim nothing under Huntington.
They insist that they tho legal holders OF tho notes.
and such are entitled 10 avail themselves OF the
security gwen for their payment Second such decla-
rations competent only 70 show the character OF
tho Of the person making them and by what
title he holds but not TO sustain or destroy The second
title. PITTS Vs.. Wilder. N. r.. 525; Gibney VS.
Marchay, "a N. Y, SOL Jackson VS.. Miller, Coweu,
ISL Jackson vs.. McVey, Is |. r., 234 TO show that
tho party went into possession under the lessons Is
instncc Of the admssioility Of such declara
sions jackson va. DobOin, John. r., 223l
Concedlng, therefore, that Huntington was In pos
session Of the premises his declarations are compe
tent only TO show the character In which he claimed,
that Of under lease or tenant by virtue OF
an txecuory contract 10 purchase. HIS declaratons
as 10 the ownership or payment Of the notes are In.
OF view in dctsrm,nlng the osse From the remaining
evidence II Is held that the Frecdmans Bank paid
the notes and is entitled thereon
Mr.. Justice Hunt delivered The opinion.
NAVIGATION OK THE HUDsoS-UsAGE GOVERNING SAIL
AND srKAM vxssxL-.
No. 1888. Peter Lyman, appellant, VS. The Steamboat
John L. Hasbrouck, Robert D. Cornell CT AL. claim
ants. Appeal from the circuit Court OF the United
States for the Eastern District OF New York.
Rules OF navigation oruaned and required to be
Observed to save lie and property employed Ia ma
rne pursuits, and not To promote collisions or to
y the wrong d0er where such disaster has occurred
(Thc SunnysIdo, Otto, 30
ships and vessels engaged In commerce ought to OBJ
the rules of navigation IN all where they
apply aud II Is safe TO anrm that they always apply
when there Is impending risk OF collision, except
special cases. where their observance would tend 10
promote what they ordained TO prevent or where
special circumstances render departure from them
indispensably necessary to avoid Immediate danger.
both parties admit that the collision described IN
the record occurred at tho time and place alleged In
the pcadinss, and II appears that The owner OF Tho
soop, having suffered pecunary loss by the disaster
Instituted libel IN rem. In tho District Court against
the steamer TO recover compensation Tor tho value OF
Enough appears to show that the soop was laden
with nagging stone and that she bound on vow
age from Catskii on tho HUDSON River, the city OF
Brooklyn, and that the steamer was bound on trip
up tho river, with barge lashcd to her starboard
side.
Proper signal lights displayed by both vossels
and II IS not controvcrtcd tnat they Doth had com.
petent lookous nor that they were both we'll manned
and equipped
Precisely what took place before the sIoop reach ed
Newburg does not appear. nor would u be OF much
importance II u wero known When they left that
place they took in the mainsa and b Tor the reason
that the wind blew pretty hard, and IL appears that
they did not hoist those sails again until they
past Magazine Point, which the east shore of tho
river. Before they reached West Point all agree that
the OF the sloop was well the west side
OF the channel Of navigauon. Tbroughou the same
period the steamer was proceeding the river on tho
east sdc OF the channe, which Is the usual pathway
Of steamers navigating in that direction.
Sailing vessels, especially whcn descending tho
river usually keep well over TO tho western side Of
the channel leaving the eastern side OF mo for
steam. Usage has sanctioned that course Of naviga.