The New York herald., 1879-03-13
THE L1TIGIOUs HOTEL MEN.

Before the supreme Court, General Term, yester-
day. Judge Davis presiding there presented still
another phase in the well known suit brought
+. Mitchell against Cassus II. Read Thecontrovcrsy
between the parties which began in 1871, is inter-
esting and important both to hotel men and lawyers
to the former from the that the contestants are
respectively the propretors of the Hotel Brunswick
and the Hoffman House. and to the legal profession
by reason of the fact that the questions which have
arisen in tho of the controversy have never
before been definitely decided in any of the courts
of this country. As il well known, the case has
already seen the light Of the Court Of Appeals. ap-
pears to give brief statement of the facts that Road
and Mitchell for time prior to 1884, had been
partners in keeping the Holman House, on Broadway;
that about the time the partnership was to expire
Read. without the knowledge OF Mitchell the lat
ter claims procured from the parties who owned the
Hoffman House q removal of the leases in his own
solved that subseauently Mitchell made 4se"yarv
OF this fact and brought the present action have
the leases declared partnership property and that
1871. the complaint dismissed, the Court deoid-
Ing that the leases after the ter
existing between the parties and that consequently
the plaintiff had sustained no damage by the action
Of Mr.. Read In this condition the case
finally carried by appeal on the part OF
Mir. Mitchell to the Commission Of Ap-
peals. which tribunal reversed that decision
holding that one member Of q partnership cannot,
during its existence. take removal lease of prem
ises ioased by the arn. although the re-
newal lease does not begin until after the partner
ship is to expire. The case with the opinion of
Commissioner Dwight being given in 81 N. "
During the pcndency of this action the plaintiff
feeling that his first action would not be successful
commenced second suit to have the partnership
dissolved. and had a receiver of the business APP
pointed who thereafter. by order. sold out the
tire business. excepting the plaintiffs claim in tho
leases, to Mr.. Read for S90,0OO In 1876 the
having been reversed, above stated 1t before
Judge Lawrence for trial After deliberating upon
the same for long time Judge Lawrence decided
that the plaintiff entitled to damages for tho
taking of the lease and gave judgment against Mr.
Head for $4,000. 1t the appeal from
this latter judgment that heard ycster-
day in the General Term. The argument
was listened to attentivcly by the Court
1t is now alleged that the facts. AZ disclosed by
counsel arc materially different from those upon
which the Commissioners of Appeals gave his dccis
ion. Numerous exceptions had been taken the
trial before Judge Lawrence, and among them were
scvogal important questions relating to good will
between partners aud the OF damages in
such cases. Mr.. John X. Dos Passos counsel for
Mr. Read concluded in elaborate argument that
the good will and furniture had been enormously in
cludcd in the assessment OF damages, aud that the
Judgment should bc reversed Mr. John l.. Burrjn,
counsel for Mr.. Mitchell made a lengthy argument
in reply and combated those views The decision
which was reserved by the Court, will DO watched
with interest