The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-11-08
DECISIONS.
SUPREME coURr-cHAMBERs.
BY Judge Lawrence,

by Judge Lawrence.
The Eleventh Ward National Bank VS. Rogers; Ber-
ran vs. Duly; Shuts vs.. Ryder; Willard VS.. Rogers
Chnice VS.. Senscnderer; Walsh VS.. Garrard Gardner
vs. Hunt; The Home Insurance Company VS.. Rschun;
Collender vs. Pheau; Kaiske vs.. Mackie; Bloomfield
vs. Gccnty schenck VS. Feaiey; Harper va Cockroit;
s.rong vs.. schelert; Liggns VS.. Bailey; Clegg vs..
Aikcns; Clara VS.. Lustig; Combcs VS.. Moore; The
GcrmuDia Lie Insurance Company vs.. McLelland ;
Warden VS. Browning; Dennins VS.. Hamilton; Selling
vs.. whitney; Dillon vs.. Dillon ana thirty eight others
Daily The Society Tor the Reformation OF Juvenile
Dehnquents; Lowrie VS. starr; Tho sheeler ana Hull
Insurance Company VS.. sullivan; The Germanla Lite
Insurance Company Vs.. Keicher; Roeslor VS..
son; Clarke vs. Doying; Tho Williamsburg Guy
Fire Insurance Company vs. Rusten; Meigs
" Meyer Foster VS.. Coburn; De Lacey
PoIhemus; Phillips VI. Bacha; matter OF Lewis:
Harper ". Cockrot; Howe VS. Little; Daily VS.. The
Society Tor the Reformation OF Juvenile Dcnquen,s;
The oswego Starch Factory vs. Boylan; Page VS.. Tho
Chrome Steel Company; Wiley vs. Chase Gebbard vs..
Blake; Montgomery VS.. The Market Fire Insurance
Company; herltz VS.. Gerhardt; Cohen VS.. Rowe !;
anJ Williams vs.. Stewart.-Granted.
Porter VIZ Morris.--As the defendant Althca Black,
WAS not declared iunatc until alter the decree
entered anu as u does not appear that the unacy
listed al tho time that she was served with the sum
mons and complaint nor at the timc OF tho entry of
tho Decree there seems to DO necessity Tor the first
motion, anu IL 10 denied. Alnca Black did not con-
sent, and could not on account Of her lunacy have
OF the sale, aud the allowances exceeded tho
amount prescribed by statute think that they
should be reduced so as not to exceed the statutory
limit Let orders be entered IN conformity with these
views
Hoffman VS.. Schiller -Having read over tho several
afdavts read on this motion, l am confirmed IN tho
OPINION that exists Tor vac ting the sale OF
The Inortgaged premises. satisfied that the sale
was tar; mat no misrepresentation was made to the
defendant Bonncman or to any one acting his be-
hall mat u he has sustained any Injury has been
through his own inatcntion and laches The motion
vacato the sale Is therefore denied and the stay
heretofore granted Is vacated, with $40 costs oil mo-
ton.
Cnatterton vs. KreitieE-I am not prepared to hold
that tue tOJd section OF the Codc OF Civ Procedure
dispcuses with the necessity OF an affidavit upon
application Tor an injunction. II 1t does not the
hcaton o the complaint Is not sufficient. The 603d
section must be road IN connection with section CO.,
see also Mr.. Throop's note 10 section 6oa) For
reason motion tor Injunction 10 denied but as
the point 10 new, without costs.
Everingham Va Vanderbilt II the defendants are
enltled To issue execution on the Judgment re-
terred 10 for the reason las they are
aud not nai Judgments and II they illegally or
caused to DO issued sucn executions the plaintiff has
ample remedy al law Tor tho damages sustained. l
see no reason Tor granting this order.
Luckcmeyer vs. NcLaughlin.--Ine only exception
10 the report OIL the referee Insisted upon and argued
by the dcfcndants counsel was tho TACT that do
regard II rs well TAKEN and the motion to confirm tho
referees report Is therefore granted.
Best vs. Hall The motion Tor a reference In this
case - denied on tue authority oil Martin VS. The
Windsor Hotel Company 40 How. Reports, a0lj.
Butler VS.. Calaghan.-lnc general rule IS that u
piantn may discontinue liz action u matter OF
course on paymant Of costs Il waies Practice, 600,
aud cited.) There be reason Tor not
applying tue general rule 70 this Upon payment
OF costs before notice oil trial aud subsequent proceed
ings before trial this motion is granted.
Matter Of Uilman.-rhis case appears to TALL within
the provisions Of chapter 52 Of the Laws OF 1875 and
the applicant on the lace OF tho papers has COM
pliod with the provisions oil the statute Il follows
that the motion should DO granted. Ordered accord
insy.
Miller VS.. Smtn.--An order has been signed in this
before TINS was submitted.
Vincent Vincent IL want proof OF the service OF
the summons and complaint The complaint should
be before tnc court ON this motion.
Mason VS. Daiy-Where Is the affidavit OF regular
ity IN TINS casey
lno People ex rel Finoberg vs. Tho Congregation
Fifteenth Isrncl ~ S.So proof OF service appears 10
have been He'd The ordcr IN default be granted
without sucn proof
Huerstcd vs. Torrey. -Mcmorandum for counsel
Mater OF tue New York News Publish ing Company -
Explp nation desired.
The Uuited States Trust Company VS.. Clason.--
Where Is the report Of Mr. Rudd TINS case
placed on the short calendar Tor second Friday
oil Noyemuer term.
Kennedy VS. Hcydenrcch. Motion to modify tho
stated in The within memorandum.
Brewster vs.. Solomon Motion to vacate the order OF
arrest nercn doniod, Win costs OF motion, Tor tho
Rutbvcn vs.. Iho Canada Southern Railway Com.
pany.-Moton DENIED on tho ground that the
had been vacated or noticed Tor trial No COSTS Of
Ricger W.. Hilier--Shoud 60 before Judge Van
Worst
Brumlcy VS.. Plath.--Let an attachment issue.
by Judge Donohue.
Hurd VS.. Kcarncy. Memorandum.