The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-06-12
DECISIONS.
SUPREME coURr--CHAMBERs.
Ry INDIA ponohue


BY Judge Donohuc.
Weld vs. Strong, DePyster vs.. Beekman; Brands
hagen VS.. Braudshagen; Gebhardt Vs. Limbert-
Paisley VS. Paisley.--Reierred TO W. A. Boyd TO Tx
amount
Jones vs. The Mayor, &c.-Motion denied. See
Griffin VS.. Taylor; Washington Life Insurance Com
pany vs. upper ct al Orders granted
BY Judge Barrett
Low vs. Ramsey. -Orders as settled,
Jackson VS. Kitchen and another. Tho adjustment
OF costs rs affirmed and the order is settled.
richardson Clark-By mistake Vi fact the plain
I'll has sold the interest oil the defendant la property
which had been previous conveyed. Thus not nd
sold, and 1t requires no citation oil authorly 10
show that Judgment and execution canno. BIO thus
satisfied But the cases are all ono way, holding that
relief VIII be granted In some OF them there mad
been The decisions however, are
not placed upon that ground, but upon the broad
principle tha.n reality there had been no satisfaction
orded upon bills flied, but long current OF later
authorities uphoa the power and the right TO grant
refer upon moson --rhw motion must DC granted.
40 Ia Jackson vs. Kitchen
Weir vs.. yaiL-Mr. sheppard's criticisms upon these
findings appear TO be in the nam correct Provision
should be made for vas expenses In the Liverpool
matter. The 81, 100 has nothing TO do with that II
IS Intended however to charge Vail with int est upon
his receipts as found and 10 allow him interest upon
these expenses from tho date when they were made.
Further the plaintiffs counsel has not noted his
sent dissent TO tho defendant Va's proposed ind
ings. have noted upon the margin Of NJ Shop.
pard's memorandum some further Suggestions
vega Va JANE. Upon tncso pupefe l should, " the
defendant had appeared upon the original notion have
appointed the plaintiff NJ receiver Tho defendant =
interest," according 10 his own showing Is very slight
and on the plaintin's showing bis conduct has been
reprehcnsiblc ana such ne 10 require that tho plaintiff
rather than he should DO protected The defendant
seems to projected himself pretty thoroughly II
not over scrupulously Upon the whole II Is plain
that the defendant was not nislcd In tho or by the
omission Of the date IN the copy Of the original
order served; that tho ordor which followed
was substantially Just, and ~ tho rccoiversLip
has been In great part executed and complaint ID
made Of the security furnished tho motion should be
denied with $40 costs and 10 abide the event the
reference ordered TO supcrntend The delivery by tho
defendant OF tho assets his possession Defendant
must appear before such referee and be examined with
respect thereto.
Muock VS. Muiock-lt Is quite clear that tho attor-
ney has no lion, and that tho only question 10 10
whether tho parties have really settled the suit The
defendant did sign discontnuance, but ne AYERS In
ms old ahdavit that he did not do SO adviscdiy and
that promises were made TO him which have not been
fulfilled He makes no snlaavli IN opposition 10 the
motion The statements are FULLY met by tho oppos-
fns aidavts used before Judge Van Worst and indeed
tue defendant has no reason TO complain OF discon.
tinuance except possibly with regard TO hrs alleged
counter Claims These may DO protected by pro-
vision IN ths present order similar TO that IN
the order made by Judge Van Worst The motion must
BIO granted, without prejudice 70 defendants counter
claim, n any he has
Giiiian Va Nitacht--i have no papers In this mat.
ter Apply In Chambers
crmrniEs va Cnmm ms Without attem ptua tc
minutsy analyxe thoss very onctinp adavits or "a