Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1881-01-13
THE COURT OF APPEALS.

THE COURT OF APPE4Ls.
The Case of Andrew Crumlish VS.
the Wilmington q Western Rail-
road Co.-Tbe Tantum- Croasaale
Case-Argument OF Counsel.
Special Correspondence of State Journal
Dover, Jan. 5.-Argument in the will
case, reported yesterday, was finished this
morning. Decision reserved.
The case of Thompson VS.. Thompson
was taken up this afternoon Whiteley for
appellant, Bates for respondent. This is
an appeal from the Court of Chancery a,
New Castle. An information was fled by
the Attorney General at the relation OF
certain children of one John Thompson,
late citizen of Uhristisna hundred, and
alleged to have been of unsopnd mind al
the time of making the devise, ia
set aside deed he had made to
two other Of his children The chancellor
on motion of the solicitor Of these last
children, 10 dismiss this information on the
ground that, under the laws of Delaware
the Attorney General had no right to file
such information, decided that such wa;
the case, but permitted the plaintiffs tc
amend by changing the Information into q
Dill to be filed by next freud of Johr
thompson. The right of the Chancellor
to make this amendment ia the question
low before the court The property
involved IL worth ABOUT $40, 600
Tbs case will occupy part of tomorrow
The Hollis Vandegrift case, involving tn,
question as to aether ap affidavit deny
ing the signature TO note must include
also denial of the ALLEGATION, 60. in tn,
note
lu the case of Crumlish vs.. the Della
ware Western Rs lroad Company loon IL
come up, Bsujlm II Brewster. Z q o
Philadelphia, will appear for Cruuiish
Anthony Higgins, E-q was originally il
the case, but Withdrew after becoming
agent for Mr.. Carter, in buying up lht
railroad stock at the time when the rae
between MIR, Garter and Col McOomb fo
the control thereof WAS going on.
Down, Jan. 9 In tbs Court of Error
and Appeals. this morning, the argumen
IN the case of Thompson VS.. Thon pson
touohiug conveyance of property mad
by one Of alleged uusound mind, was fin
ished. Decision reserved.
This afternoon the Holls-yandeprif
case is in progress. 1t will probabl,
occupy the greater part of tomorrow.
Dover, Jan. Z In the Court o. Error
and Appeals this morning, Author
Higgins, ESD, finished his argument il
the oliis-N sndergrift case. He wa
followed BY jacob Moore, Esq, VIII
spoke till the close OF the morning ses
SION. This afternoon Charles B. Lore
Esq is making the closing argument.
When MIR Lore closes the Court wi
adjourn over to Monday. The Tsntur
case is next Oh tho list, but whether it wi
be taken up on Monday is uncertain, q
AIR. BreTster of Philadelphia is expecte
on that day, and, if he comes, his case
thst Of Orumlish vs.. The Delaware West
cru rellroad-may be taken up.
Down Jan. THE argument in th
Hollis Nandpgiift case, referred to in
previous letter, was closed by Mr. Lor
this afternoon, The court reserved il
decision. In fact decisions in none of tn
cases are looked for until the next term.
The Hollis-Nandegrift case was an actio
upon two promissory notes, the defense I
which was material alterations, after the
bad been signed and delivered by th
defendant, without his knowledge On
consent The first trial was had in til
Superior Court ct New Castle at the Ma
term Of 1879, and resulted in hung ury
evidence of the alterations being adnitte
under the general issue. 1t came up aqai
IN the following November, when h
court declined to admit the evidence {
such alterations, and the Jury rendered
verdict for the plaintiff George H. Holli
the alterations in the notes consisted
the erasure Of the words IS Go. gnd ii
insertion of the words ''to order" III
, evidence offered 10 show this was reiecte
, by the Court because the defendant ha
, not, at or before the filing of his PHI
filed an affidavit denying the signatures
the obligation OF the notes. Exception
I this decision was taken by Yandegrift
counsel
When this case had been closed, that
Laura Evans VS. W. w. Lobdell was take
up, Mi Lore appearing for Mrs. Evan
la TINS case an interesting question touc
ing the right of married women to conv,
property is invpv. d.
Brii fly, the history of the case is ms fe
lows Seattergaod Allen died June
. 1873 by his vii, he d, vised TO his siste
Laura Eve's, the plaintiff III fee simpl
; an u"d yititd interest III the houle aud !
= No, 5l4 West street. Wilmington At III
= lime sh- WA the wife If Edwin b, Evan
D md had children by him
Against her husband there was and
! mon The records of the Superior Court
: NV Gnstir county. Judgment in favor
WiyiAm j. Fen for $50, being No. 795
e. November term, 1875
- decd dated March l,t 1877. So
E.aus aud alie conveyed all then inter,
e IN Sad land 10 William W. L1bden, b
) he husbands creditor claims that t
Judgment is a lien oil the iuchoate rig
e ut courtesy Of the husband in said proper
q and Mr.. Lphdel, upon delivery OF t
E. deed, Delivered TO pay the money becar
of this claim which, if vtlid would reno
hIiG accountable TO the CREDITOR for /
hu baud debt.
e Mn Lrr argued that the "marri
~0mei = lasn OF 1873 exempts the ~
perry OF tue wife from any liability
the husbands dehts and that no iudgmt
for such dehts Can operations a lien egaii
N such prop 'rty. If the husband suryi,
v The "iie ne becomes possessed, under |
u iaw, Of Il life interest i'll the propei
+ which bs wife may own at tile ii
III ii htr 9rsth. Ia this case the
N cina;e ght Of the husband is only
IN prospective Que ard the claim cam
i became q len on the wife's property
.e ms her He mo- It he,rg only the o
10 perry winch sbe mEy own NJ tho tins
"a ler d4AIh that BECOMES 80 liable, and th
.1H-. Il