The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-25
DECISIONS.
SUPREME coURr-cHAMBgRs.

By Judge Lawrence.
In the matter OF Gurice Mason Vi. Tuinner: Tbo ON
son Guman; IN the matter OF Seaman; IN the
ser OF opper-Granted
Wade vs. Wadc.-Explanation required.
sands Va sands.-Memorandum Tor counsel.
Chatterton va knittcr.-Lcave 10 granted to the
planln TO renew ms motion in this Case ana the
Lanie may be brought GU Tor argument on tho first
Monday vi December.
Mason vs. Dooley think that tho motion for
receiver OF the should be granted. The defend
ants aidavits show that the property Is only worth
between 81, 900 and 81, 900, while the defendant
amount to IS 600 IL Is hardly possible TO argue in
sucn state Of facts. That Inc property Is an adc-
quaie security ana Tor the mortgage aebt within the
principles settled by ali the cases the plaintiffs right
20 receiver seems 10 DO clear Motion granted, with
cosia
Clark VS. CampbelL-The plaintiff and two (if not
oil threc) Of the defendants reside IN the county Of
Washington. That was. therefore, the proper county
Tor the trial OF the action when II was commenced,
Even u under section $50 vi the code oil Civil Procedure
The dciendants cannot as matter OF right clam that
the cause should be sent 10 Washington county Tor
trial am OF the opinion that under the provisions
OF section 951 the Court has the power onanga the
place OF trial, on the ground hat New York is the
proper county ana as the parties reside Washing
ton county aud tho transaction took place there,
would appear TO be y proper exercise Of the power
vested IN the Court TO send the last named
county tor trial Tho motion Is, therefore, granted,
but y some OF tho points involved arise under the
code and may not DO Tree from doubt, no costs
allowed
Boyd VS. Rogers -Judgmcnt granted.
L-ursobn w. Drow.-Iho motion seems TO DO TO
copane the complaint 10 the proof taken brIorc the
rolcrec. The complaint not being before me am
unable at present 10 dispose OF the motion.
la the matter OF Doriiz-So many applications have
been presented by persons claiming 10 have special
deposits In the savings bank mentioned in this petition
have their claims paid on the ground that dc.
posts cannot be considered MS part Of the general
isssis Of Inc bank that do not feel warrantod even
n have the power, 10 direct such payment u
motion, aud am compelled, therefore, to deny the
application this and otber cases until the Court
has put Ia possession by the OF general
ptstsmenl OF the condition Of the bank. Motion de-
MED, but without costs.
In the matter Of Flegcber.Thcre should be refer
ence In this Case.
In the matter OF 0rr-The parties do not agree al
10 tne lacts The petitioner claims that the deficit
was special anu tho receiver that u was general, and
tbst n passed TO the dcposors' account in the
ordinary course OF business. cannot motion de-
AIDE the question OF fact anu the petitioner must
therefore prIng his action Motion denied, without
cosIA
Loeb Va Boyd The motion to override the answer
a frivolous ana for judgment must be granted. In
the Gaze OF The Croccrs Bsnk Penncd & Abb- N.
e. y 1901 the Court vi Appeals held tuat prc-cxst-
,ur q suacsent consideration Tor tho TRANSFER OF nc
sssn ~ sso.p Mo,,on granted, WITH costs
Ssekssg v. BarrssI-shouia not some enors TO ma