The New York herald., 1879-03-29
THE COURTS.
Decision on Appeal by the Supreme
Court, General Term.
QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
Suits Growing Out Of the Great
Bond Street Fire.

The Supreme Court General Term. yesterday
handed down number OF important decisions of
argued principally during the present term OF
the Court. Among these decisions was one in the
suit brought by General Winfield s. Hancock against
the proprietors of the st. Cloud Hotel. General
Hancock, with his family, were boarding at the st.
Cloud Hotel kept by George W. Rand and others,
under arrangement fixing the price of accom-
modations during his stay upon the understanding
that he would remain at the hotel until
the following summer. unless sooner 'or-
dered away on military duty" 1t was claimed
on behalf Of the hotel proprietors that in
viewof this understanding the prices agreed upon
were less than those charged transient guests.
During the Generals stay at the hotel his rooms
were entered and robbed Of property amounting in
value to about $500. Suit commenced by
General Hancock against Mr.. Rand and his partners
to recover this amount and referred to Horatio
J. Averill to hear and determine all issues The
referee. while finding all the facts substantially in
favor of the plaintiff, held as a question Of law
that the relation OF landlord and guest did not
exist between. the parties because of the
special contract III relation to time Of stay
and price of accommodations. An appeal was
taken to the General Term and was argued
in January last. In its decision yesterday the Gen
eral Term reverses the decision Of the referee and
holds in effect that the defendants not relieved
from their common law liability because Of the
the plaintiff and DEFENDANTS Judge ingalls, in giving
this decision of the Court. after elaborate review
of the leading cases, says:"Although the decisions
have not been uniform upon the question whether
fixing in advance the price to be paid and the dura-
ton Of the stay Of the visitor at hotel has the effect
boarder or lodger and to deprive such vis-
itor of the character Of guest. yet ex-
animation of the subject has led to the conclusion
that regarding hotels they now conducted and
patronizcd such arrangement does not necessa-
ry havo the effect to prevent the relation of inn
md uhi iOh nff
thereto The was argued by General W. s. Nc
Mahon for General Hancock and by Mr.. s. W. Full
this view that it settles disputed question to the
rights OF guests at hotels which has been frequently
before the courts. and has been decided in various
ways in this State. The will doubt be taken
to the Court of Appeals
Another important decision the given in
the suit brought by Frederick ?. James against
James A. Cowing and the New York Elevated Railroad
Company. First mortgage bonds OF the West Side
and Yonkers Elevated Railroad Company were fore
closed, Mr.. Cowng, as trustee of tho bondhOders,
having bought in the property for 100000, the
derstandine being that he was hold the same for
holders. 1d The plaintiff owned s22.5oo worth Of
these bonds. Subsequently the franchise was
pany for 100000. Mr.. James brought suit both
against Cowing and the Elevated Company. Judge
Larrcmore before whom the was tried, decided
that Cowing went beyond his trust in selling to an
Che plaintiffs for the amount Of the latters shares
but he held that the New York Elevated Railroad
General Term yesterday affirmed Judge Larremore 8
decision to Cowing but reversed it as to the rail-
road company, holding that it, knowing Of the trust
At the time of the purchase. was equally liable with
Cowing.
The Court also gave decision in the suit of Fell
lows Noonan against the city The plaintiff sued
to recover alleged balance due upon contract
under which the plaintiff Noonap constructed out
let sewer in Eleventh avenue and Twenty-thrd
street. The defendants sought to deduct interest
upon advances made to the contractor from the
er dates Of advance to the date OF tho confirmation
OF the assessment Tho plaintiffs conceded that
interest should be charged, but contcndcd that
the computation should be carried only to tho
date of the completion and acceptance Of the work.
The amount involved in the difference OF computa-
more the deendants position was supported by the
decision of the Court. which the General Term now
. a1irms. Judge Brady delivered the opinion. Other
points also involved in the decision i'll favor of
the city, but none of such consequence as this,
which applies to all contracts made prior TO the pas
sage of chapter $50 OF the Laws of 1s7 Mr.. John H.
Strahan represented the plaintiffs and Francis Lynde
Stetson the city.
Among the other decisions OF more general inter-
est was that in the suit of Abel Wheaton against
Jacob Voorhs, Jr. The suit was on $4,000 mort
gage foreclosure, the defence being usury. Mr..
Wheaton told Il. W. willctt, cashier of the Bulls
Head Bank. that he had money to loan, and the lat
ter brought to him the defendant, which was fol-
lowod by the $4,000 mortgage transaction. 1t is
alleged that voorhis paid S425O bonus, of which
$3.50 was paid to the plaintiffs attorneys for cxam-
lining the ttle So 1875 to the plaintiff and 81 $50
willctt. In the court below verdict given for
the plaintiff. This Judgment the General Term now
geta l