The New York herald., 1878-02-05
DECISIONS.
SUPREME COURT CHAMBERS.

matter Of A. 4. Preston Gocict VS.. Sexton; in tho
lntyre VS.. Ogden; Robinson Corcoran; the Society
OF The New York Hospital VS.. Coo; wcymann vs.
Tanncnbaum; Robinson vs.. Corcoran; IN the matter
OF ADra Il. Preston; the East River Savings lnstitu-
ton VS.. Allen; Wood VS. kea.; Fitzgerald IS. smith,
White VS. Leriey; the Greenwich savings Bank VS..
Youngs; Van Loan vs.. Gates; IN the matter OF p.
DicKie; the Germanii Fire Insurance Company u.
Robinson Muller; Boyer vs. Decourcey; Greene
VS. McFare; Vanderveer vs. Curry; Smith vs. O'Relly;
the Cilzcns Savings Bank VS. Griswold; the Bank OF
savings VS.. Lawrence; the Mutual Lille Insurance
Company VS. Mallory; Peterkin vs. Craig; the Man
haitian Lie Insurance Company vs. McCahill Nos.
Lowell VS. CocKrott; the Bank OF New YORK Arm
strong; Nordmann VS.. Goldsmith; White VS. Drake
Luke; the shaw and Wilcox Company VS.. Auch moody;
van w,cS S vs. Bayer Meyers % vs. Dant; w,ams vs.
Lesser vs. Hymes.-Granted
Lyddy vs. Harway.-Denied.
White vs.. jennings; Dress w. Meyer Lockwood va
Cazade VS.. Herkloz Put In the order on whose
motion the rider Is Tered.
Crane VS.. CrofutL -Disml lsscd, without costs.
KIDD vs. 'Rely.-Motion denied
Crane VS. CrotutL-Motion dismissed
Jarmain VS. The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern
Railroad Company; Raberg Same; Drake va
Same, and Monroe VS.. same.-Granted five per cent
Babcock vs.. Babcock Motion denied, without costs.
By Judge Barrett.
DeBonay vs. Cary.-Granisd.
Devoe VS.. Devoc.-Order granted.
BY Judge Law wrence.
MacarlsDd vs. Mora; matter OF smelling, and Hedge
vs.. Tone e-Opniohs.
Lyon VS.. Munker.-Memorandum for counsel.
In The matter OF certain mechanics lens.-What
authority is there tor thisY
Lippett VS.. Cohn.-rhe motion Tor leave to file
supplemental answer is granted upon payment OF
costs OF motion, and tho costs OF the defendants at
torncy to be taxed Tho motion to vacate the order
OF reference denied, win leave to after
supplemental answer has been served.
Taylor vs. Irwin mink that the motion to mako
the compliant moro definite and certain must DO de-
nied See culver VS. Holster a Abbott. 4c6, and re.
marks OF Sutherland j., at p 400; Hastings Thur
Der, Is How, $50 Motion denied, with costs.
The Oriental Paint Works VS.. Hart-rhe petition
makes out case tor tho re moval of this cause into
the Circuit Court OF the United States and the
ry is IN compliance with the statute The order ap-
Piled tor must therefore be granted.
Dress vs. Gujahr.-The motion for the appoint
ment a receivdr Tor the rents, &C., in this case Is
denied tor the that piantin's proofs
inadequacy OF the security sufficiently strong
TO JUSTLY the appointment oi a receiver. Costs OF
motion are granted TO the defendant
Bates vs. Spingate-rhe defendant Is entitled only
to costs which have been occasicncd by the de-
murrer. The costs Tor proceedings before trial
be allowed (Crary VS.. Atwood, Abbott 220J,
Is he entitled to charge term lee, the
reached and argued during the term whom it nrst
proceedings before trial properly allowed. Tho
clerks lee was dist uisemcn caused by the demurrer
and tho defendant is entitled TO it,
lu the matter OF &. Gesinger, a lunatic.-Case de-
cided by Judge Braay.
Lydccker vs. Ahern. To grant this motion would
very much resemble deciding tho against the
fcndant In advance. The defendant appears
lawfully in possession of the property mentioned as
pledgee, not US owner, and the Court ought not
o motion to deprive him Of that possession. Motion
denied, but without costs.
Parsons VS.. Quigg-l think that tho plaintiff is
right IN asking Tor reference to determine the
amount duo from him and that all the motions stand
proceed from day TO day. See memorandum Tor
counsel
The Importers and Traders Bank vs. McDowelL-
The molion Is denied, with costs. See memorandum
Thomas vs. Thomas Referred to Moses Ely, 10 as.
certain and report what II anything, should be al
lowed torhe plaintiff as temporary aiimoDy or for u
counsel iee herein The reference VIII proceed on two
va, I'm finn trnp t,loco
ADJOURNED oy tho reieree IN his discretion ior good
cause.
Compauy-rhe order o. the 3)th oil November last
does appear have been literally complied with
Tor the reason that certain arrangements we're made
between the attorney Tor the respective parties In re-
atlon 10 the nspcctcn OF the policy, which arrange
mens were Tor lhe convenience" oi said attorneys
shall not, therefore, grant attachment this case,
but shall direct the defendants To comply within five
from this date with the order OF November 80 by
making the deposit therein directed
Meyer VS.. Becker. -Oroer granted.
Stuyvcsant VS.. Lctcr.-rhe validity Of the assign
mcnt cannot be tried afidavLs. Ii IL is void as
against the deiendant's creditors that fact
maie to appear in an appropriate action. Under the
peculiar circumstances OF the do think than
Gusts.
sUPhEME CoURT-CIRCUIT.
By Judge Lawrence.
Schroeder VS.. The World Company.-0rder settled
sloane VS.. Warnings ct aL-Sco opinion.
Marshall VS.. RoDertson.-l desire to hear counsel
further this matter. Soc morandum for counsel
Baiheimer VS.. ReichardL The deienuanps counsel
has ned his brei, but have not yet received ethor
the testimony or the piaintn's counsers Drici
SUPREME coUKT-srEcIAL TERM
BY Judge Van Worst
Stenorecher Vs. 'oss and anothcr.-Complaint dis
missed. opinion
ReilIy Dillon ct al.-Judgment Tor piai ntin
Opinion.
SUPERIOR CoURT-sPECIAL TERM.
By Judge Sanford.
Ranbetshek vs.. Blank. .-Engrosscd ordered
1le.
Miller Vs. Lynch-order denying motion for new
Fitch VS.. Martin-order staying proceedings
Chambers ct al. VS.. Mcrick-Ordered on day calen-
dar Tor February 20.
Adolpn Va. Central PARK, North and East River
Railroad Company ny-Undcrtakinga approved.
kirkland W.. CochcreiL-Reiercnce ordered.
Jung VS.. kaufman. p.-Ordor continuing injunction.
R0lard vs. Hart.-Oraered ON short calendar Tor
February 10.
Bowery Savings Bank VS.. Klein ct a.-Reierenco
ordcred.
Maryo ct al. VS.. Pouvert Of al Same VS.. Same |;
Oakley VS.. Hyet; silverby vs. James; Handy vs.
siede.-Orders granted.
sUpEIIo. COURT GENERAL TERM.
BY Chief Justice Curtis aud Judges Sedgwck and
Freedman.
Wray VS.. Fcdderke.-J Judgment and order affirmed
with costs. opinion by Chicf Justice Gurus.
Carleton VS.. Darcy ct aL-Ordor all rmcd, with
$40 costs and disbursement Opinion by Judge scds.
Fleming W. Tho Consolidated Fruit Jar Company
judgment affirmed, with costs. opinion Dy Judge
ROBBINS ct al VS.. FaIconer.-order affirmed, with
$40 costs and disbursements. Opinion by Judge
Sedewick.
Hatch VS.. Bowcs s-Order affirmed, with costs, and
with leave TO defendant to answer on payment OF
COSTS Opinion Wy Judge Freedman.
kranich vs. Reynolds. Judgment affirmed, with
costs. Op,nion by Judge Freedman
Egan vs.. Wash.-ordcr affirmed, with COSTS Opin-
ion BY Judge Freedman.
Pollen VS.. Lawrence ct aL--Ordor and judgment
Affirmed, with costs opinion by Judge Freedman.
lsaacs VS.. New York Plaster Works-Ordcr re-
vsrscd with COST, and taxation reopcned SEQ opn.
ion OPINION by Judge Freedman.
BY Chiei Justice Curtis aud Judge Freedman.
Hennequin ct aL VS.. ButtcrDeld ct al.-Judgment
affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Judge Freedman.
Abccasis vs.. Gray.-Judgment and order ain med
with COSTS. Opinion by Judge Freedman.
Cohen Vs. Goldman. j Judgment and order al rmed
with costs opinion BY Judge Freedman.
BY Chief Justice Curtis and Judges Sedgwick and
Freedman.
Nehcr vs. McDonough appealed from af.
irmed, with COSTS Opinion by Judge Curtis
BY Chief Justice Gurus ana Judge freedman.