The New York herald., 1878-03-06
THE COURTS.
A Rather Comprehensive Suit Over
Business EntangIements.
IMPORTANT REAL ESATE DECISION
An Impecunious Career with an Un-
pleasant Climax.


Charles Bensen, the trial OF which was commenced
before judge Donohue Eve weeks ago, and occupied
ten days when Judge Donohuo was not sitting ut
Special Term or Chambers tho hearing OF notions
Yesterday finally reached conclusion The action
was brought in June 1875, against Benseu who was
then tho sheriff OF Rockland county, to recover GER
tain property taken by him alleged TO be worth $4,000
and pso to recover 81 900 damages II is alleged that
Elkin Hyman In 1873, sold to L. Goldberg goods oil
value of $780, Goldberg representing that no bad
store in Canal street. the stock in which was worth
S. 900; that Hyman received two promissory notes
signed s. L. Goldberg; that he alterward discovered
that there had been fire in the store,
aud s4o0 Insurance paid, and that the man
10 whom he sold the goods not S. L. Goldberg,
but Simon Abrahams and that he had disappeared; ;
that two years aiterward Hyman found his customer
at Haverslraw Rockland county, doing business un-
der the name OF "H. Abranams' this wiie's name); (;
that Hyman thereupon obtained an attachment and
seized goods in the store upon suit against the
husband that Mrs. ADrahams at once commenced TINS
action against tue Sheriff, Bcnsen, and Mr. Hyman,
and that subsequently, Lyman got Judgment and sold
tho property through the Shetifi under execution.
The plantif claimed that while IN Canal street her
husband did business lvr her father s. L. Goldberg,
uuuer power OF attorney; that she Kept ooarders;
saved up $400, which she had kept under
the carpet unbeKnown 10 her husband, and thal u
wlth Tins money she started the cotng store at
Haverstraw, obtaining credit and was doing Dusl-
ness OF $1,000 month and had stock worth Sl,ooe
when Sherln zed It, and, as she claims, COM
plelely destroyed her business. The defence claimed
plaint's story was mere cover Ior her nus
band in nun aancc OF scheme concoctea IN 1868 10
deiraud his creditors; that in 1868 he engaged IN
business III HUDSON street, where be failed nat he
was arrested ana locked up Tor two weeks III Ludlow
Street Jail! that the judgments are still unpad that
then he went into Canal street. dong business under
rover OF the name oil his iather-in-law, D. L. Gold
berg, purchasing go0os and representing his name
10 ue S H. Goldberg, aud signing notes In this name,
While with others who knew HIM he bought goods in
his real representing the store In Canal street
as his 1t claimed that amer ncurrng many
debts there nre the Canal street sore that
friendly creditor obtained u Judgment by cohesion
and sold out the balance oil the goous; tha tue nre
sale a>mere cover Tor the removal eI the buk
vi the goods 10 Haverstraw, where he started anew
under his wife, letting none OF his crcd
lors know where he was that when The Sheri seized
the pace and sold out he started the business again
the name oil George Nathan minor, the son oI
the friendly credtor that all the TRANSACTIONS oil ADra
hams were cover To deiraud his credtors that his
WIFE, the plainun COLLISION with him, ana that
her ownership was only apparent and not real, but
was a sham ana fraud One entire day was occu-
pied IN summing up the case. Judge Donohue yes
terday charged the Jury reviewing the testimony on
both sides, and saying the whole case involved the
decision oil The simple question whether the painuh
only an apparent or the real owner oil the store
goods at Haverstraw, and that II sue was, to de-
termne the value oil the property and the damages
TO assessed. Ibe jury, alter beng out three and
halt hours were unable to agree upon verdict and
were discharged. Messrs George W. Foster and
George W. Want appeared Tor the paintiG anu Messrs
George r. LangDen and Cornelius A. Runkle for the
defendants.
QUEER REAL ESTATE TRANSFER.
A decision OF considerable Importance to real
owners just been rendered by the Common Pleas,
General Term, Judge Larremore writing the opinion.
The action is brought by Edward D. James and Sarah
James, his wife, against John J. Burchiil, and the
tacls are follows:-In January, 1871 the parties
cxecutory contract Tor the purchase and sale
Of iour lots OF land in this city Tho plaintiffs agreed
the lots for $44 0oO or Sll, 900 Tor each lot II
was also further agreed that the defendant
should commence the erection OF four houses
upon tho lots on or before February 10,
lS7l tho Same to be completed within
eleven months from that date and the plaintiffs to nd
vance 81 900 upon each house TO aid IN its erection
and upon being paid the price OF lots and advances
thereon either IN cash bond and mortgage on the
prdmlses then the plaintiffs agreed to convey to the
GccndaDL IN tee, Tree IRON all reasonable objections
except such IncumDrances as should be made or
caused suffer ed be made by the defendant, who
agreed To complete the contract on MS part within
eight months from Its date The paintils covenanted
that sarah James was seized IN ner own right Oh
good tue In lee simple IL was also agreed That the
plaintilis, at their election, might mortgage
each lot to the amount OF $4,000. and con-
vey the subject TO such mortgages IN
lieu OF the purchase money for the same amount
On the day the contract was wledged the plain
trs conveyed the premises IN question TO Isaac B.
Flnduil by a deed without iuil covenants OF warraDty.
objections raised TO the validity
Of Mrs James, lille To the premises and the deIend
mt declined TO complete the contract TEis suit was
then brought TO annul The contract and to recover
damages Tor It's breach On the trial the complaint
dismissed and an appeal was taken to the Gen.
Term The JuGge at Special Term found as mat
of lactFrsI, that the contract was made Janu-
AIRY III, 1871; second, that on the same day the
plainlirs conveyed the lots to FinduIl subject
to iDcumbrance, ana (3 that the defendant never
entered into possession oil the premises Out refused
erect the Dundlpgs because The plaintiffs could gvc
valid title TO the property AS concusion oi law
II held that the plaintiis violation oil the cove
released the defendant from all obligation 10 per-
form the contract Judge Larremore, III an elaborate
opinion, holds on the appeal that 1t was no matter
whether FInduli's deed delivered PRIOR to or sub
scqucnt to the execution OF the contract II II was
vIVIation Of plantiis' contract He next goes on 10
ulscuss the question whether the defendant was
Justified III refusing 10 erect the buildings
on the ground that the piaintllls couiu
give title to the premises within the
contemplation OF the contract and whether tneir vo-
1ation OF us covenants released him from all oDga-
tIon tncrculder. In deciding this question Judgo
Larremore proceeds to construe The contract he
says that in view OF so large an outlay oil money on
The bare security oil executory contract II IL air TO
presume tnat tue defendant rehed somewhat on the
personal character OF the parties win whom he dealt
Mrs James covenant OF selzin IN her own right oil
lee simple estate WAS the nducement To the deiend-
ANTS covenant TO expend S6O,OOO on the property
before The delivery vi the deed Such an expendi-
ture, JuGge Lirrcmore says, should not be Regarded
sis AN orllnary pay account OF the purchase
money, view OF the peculiar nature oil the contract
whose covenants were maniestly intended and should
be held 10 be IA ulna ana dependent The conveyance
by the plaintiffs and the execution oil the mortgages
by the defendant we're TO have been simultaneous.
Tnis ac taken In connection with tho covenant OF an
eNishB oupacity III si o'ieo w oo"'oJ VIZ "''
Ianty, would 10 Indicate as the Judge at Special
Term has expressed, an original intention OF the
parties the contract Judge Larremore Gays,
furlhcr, that tho defendants dstrust OF the good
faith OF the transaction not unreasonable ana the
defendant was right IN refusing performances
OF the contract unless he was saiished
that the same would bc consumnated
ia accordance with its terms. Tho conveyance by
james aud wife to Fndull and the recovery since 10
him, mean ing unless intended 20 operate TO
the prejudice oil the defendant The evidence SHOWS
intention or agreement on the part oil the defend
accept any other warrantee than the plaintiffs
or to release them III any way from the iulhncnt oil
their warrants. In conclusion, Judge Larremoro
all rms the Judy gment of the Court below.
RATHER A HOPELESS CASE.
Some time ago Norman White and others obtained
judgment 10 the Supreme Court for s222 9s against
Thomas q. Bennett. An order was given TO examine
Mr. Bennett in supplementary proceedings, at which
he appeared but quently tailed to obey order