The New York herald., 1878-11-17
THE COURTS.
Important Decision in the Hackley
Contract Case.
ATTEMPT TO CONDEMN A NEW BUILDING.
'0s'1'" a "Hole in the Wall" is Alleged
to Have Been Used

The Rev
Theatre IL oid SUIT OF Devn against the Mayor whch
and in the quently been before the courts in its different
Saul Of Ia was again the subject OF bre decision py
DR. J. NJ Larremore, of the Court OF Common Pleas on
r King thi behalf of the city for stay of proceed
Episcopal The action, will be remembered, was
This me non the old Hackley contract to clean the
IN the tn sd city for five years for the
This eyeni, dm of S27900o. and upon which Judgment
Isaac Riley for balance of 100000 The case was
which sssferee who gave Judgment against the city
viii d. sy excepted to the referees report the General
..sa rm reversed the judgment and the went to
Anon Court OF Appeals ana finally sent to new
Rev florence. Mr. Miller Assistant Corporation Counsel
Chu ow makes affidavit in which he states that the
has been before the referee since the Goth Of
list 'une 1875 and that at the Of the
day edngs the plaintiff. Mr. Deyln announced to the
referee that he not represented before him and
that the gentleman who had previously represented
him longer his counsel in this or any other
Mr. Devlin then protested, and has repeatedly
=, since protested. against any proceeding in
m the case his behalf. and testimony
&c he referee The counsel representing defendants
pther than the city however insist upon their right
to proceed with the and take affirmative iudg
ment against the city, notwithstanding the neglect
Or refusal Of the plaintiff thus to proceed and the
right of the defendants do has been conceded by
the referee. who has allowed and is still allowing
them to put in considerable testimony, with the
So'ecs oa charging no, une o", a ine
to have the. question determined by an APP
plication to the Court for stay of proceed
ings otherwise. Mr.. Miller then goes
to say that it is exceedingly important to
be determined before any further proceedings
had He states further on information and belief
ithat in August last Mr.. Devlin duly adudicated
bankrupt and that no assignee or trustee in bank
= 7btcy of said bankrupt has yet been appointed.
Ing .davits in opposition to the motion made
Cor half Of the codefendans, in which the principal
~ erments of Mr.. Miller denied and in which it is
ne erred that the interests Of the codefenants other
Th- the city identical with the plaintiff
Bap that the motion is simply made for delay and in
=. fsuance Of which the city has followed
- ing the thirteen years of this litiga-
claimed that the Court had no jnris-
aiction under the circumstances to allow such
Judgment to be taken; and second, that the bank
ruptcy of the plaintiff has rendered the action de-
fective and no further proceedings properly be
- had therein until the assignee person who
ceeds to his interest has been brought before the
Court. In deciding this important question Judge
Larremore in his decision says:-'It was not denied
the argument that the plaintiff formally adju
aicated bankrupt by court of competent jurisdic
Court of Appeals, in Requa Holmes G6
N. ". 1881. decided that where the interest
Df defendant transferred by. operation
law pendente lite az in Of bankruptcy the
lion becomes thereby defective and the assignee or
persons who succeed to the interest of the
Attendants must be brought before the Court before
any proceedings be had in the action. The
soning in that applies with equal force to this
BY the proceedings in bankruptcy all plaintiffs IN
n terest in this action rests in the assignee in bank
= tuptcy appointed or to be appointed Until
= he is brought before this Court further prosecution
the action should be allowed When the assignee is
e hade . party the defendant corporation may make
further application in the case. Stay ad Interim