The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-03-09
HEARD IN COURT TODAY.
Case Of Michael B. Lynch VS..
Charles N. Earle.
Plaintiffs Demurrer TO Special Plea
Other Court Notes-Docket for
March 10.

| Mlcnael IS. Lynch, deputy shorih,
against Charles Ill. Earle was given before
the appellate division OF the Supreme
Court today. The case originated In this
manner: .,tt.t
Arthur T. Parker OF Attleboro, Mass,
brought suit against Lydia A. Macomber
] OF East Greenwich.
Service of the writ was made February
| IL, 1880, by attaching the interest OF LYDIA
| A. Macomber, in certain real estate.
Judgment was obtained against the de-
fendant, and an execution was issued
| thereon.
The execution thus obtained was never
levied, nor was the property sold under IT.,
but was in due time returned to the court.
Subsequently, an alias execution was
taken out, which was placed In the hands
of the plaintiff. The alias execution was
never levied.
The plaintiff, in his capacity as deputy
sheriff, without ever having levied the
execution, November is, 1892, advertised
to sell on February IS, 1893, all the right,
title and interest, which the defendant
had in the real estate In controversy on
February II, 1890.
On February Is, 1893, the plaintiff put
the property up at public auction, an
nouncing that he had levied on the same
as by law required, and that he sold the
property, by force and virtue OF the exc
cution, and levy Hereunder.
The defendant, Chas. ii. Earle was the
highest bidder at such sale, and paid down
to the plaintiff Lynch, ten per cent.
OF the amount bid, which was
one of the conditions OF the sale.
Afterwards, having sscertained that there
had been no levy Of the alias execu-
required, and that consequently the
officer, the plaintiff In this case, could not
| convey interest in the real estate, the de-
fendant declined to pay the balance OF the
amount bid. Whereupon the plaintiff
commenced suit. th
The defendant pleads specially, setting
up no levy OF the alias execution.
The plaintiff demurs to this plea and as
signs three causes for demurrer.
| First. Because the last clause Of plea Is re-
| pugnant ana contradictory.
Second; Because the plea does
said Lydia A. Mncomber in real estate
described In deed. Is other than. or different
from, the interest Of Macon Der in real estate
| on the l2th day of February, 1890.
| Third. That IL is itnmateral whether the
execution was ever levied.
Other hearings were: Whitby VS.. Nc
Carthy, Free Congregational Society ct al.
for an opinion.
Docket for March 10.
appellate Divisiop.J
3705. Elizabeth T. Jones VS.. w. Rick
ard. Attorneys-A. ID. Bean for COM
37i2. Frederick ID. Williams va. 8. q B.
Lederer. Attorneys--Wilson q Jenckes
for complainant.
1852. yaria Grimes vs.. Rosay. Attor-
neys--G. j. West for complainant; G. 4.
3699. Christian Kiess ct ux. VS.. James
Everard. Attorneys--J. j. Hahn for
complainant, W.. +. Angel and +. T.. Car
penter for respondent.
3703. Smith & Greene vs. Frank j.
Johnson ct al. Attorneys--A. L. Brown
ent.
s7o4. Mary Y. Smith VS.. Obadiah ct al.
Attorneys-Tanner 4 Cannon for COM
| plainant. t .s
1879. Michael Hayden ct ux ct al. VS..
William Quinn, tr. Attorneys-G. j.
! West for complainant. WI
1854. Amelia M. Carpenter vs. George
Il. Attorneys-Cook q ANGEL for petit
| tioner, j. M. Brennan for respondent.
9449. Eva f. Drake W. Warner M. At
torneys--- -Bassett q Mitchell for petitioner,
Tanner & Cannon for respondent.
torneys Page q Owen for petitioner.
3713. Joseph Carroll, p. p. q. ct al. VS..
Michael Carroll. Attorneys Page q
Owen and II. Alny for complainant.
363S. Citizens Savings Bank VS.. VIM.
j. Mitchell administrator ct al. Attor-
neys-J. M. Ripley for complainant, Bas-
set q Mitchell and J. M. Brennan for re-
95s3. Sarah J. Noyes vs. George w.
Attorneys-J M. Brennan for complain
ant.
343. Charlotte r. Dodge VS.. John w.
Hogan ct al. Attorneys--L. Champlin and
A. X. Greene for complainant; J. w. Ho-
for respondent.
1852. Emma J. Bishoff VS.. John J. At
torneys-E. 8. Hopkins for petitioner.
Common Pleas Division.l
7S6. Annon Deoereux ct ux. VS.. w.
Mowry, adr. Attorneys. s. Lapham
for plaintiff, M. ID. l.. Mowry for defen-
dant W ftt
7S4. Francisco Bisaccia vs.. Providence
Worsted Mills. Attorneys Tanner &
German for plaintiff, 5. Ames for defend
ant.
675. Hardt Won Bermuth & Co. VS.. r.. l..
Clothing Company. Attorneys. ID.
Thurston for plaintiff, j. j. Hahn for de-
fendant.
s52 II. Friedman VS.. Rubin Fine. At
torneys-C. M. Salisbury for plaintiff, j.
j. Hahn for defendant.
S07. John Levenson vs.. Aaron II. Me-
Crillis. Attorneys-van Slyck 4 Num-
ford for plaintiff.
81. A. T. Wall & Co. VS.. Potter. Read
& Co. Attorney-H. q. Curtis for plain
tl1f.
s1S. Michael Spaight vs. Joseph Gil
man q Son. Attorney. M. Brennan
for plaintiff.
lo8. Charles Curfew Va. Jonas Barker ct
al. Attorney-G j. West for plaintiff
302. William Miller ct ux. VS.. Fred
erick Newman. Attorneys-G. J. West for
plaintiff.
VIM. j. Lanegrove VS.. Henry G.
Smith. Attorneys--C. II. Salisbury for
plaintiff, II. w. Burbank for defendant.
7222. Mary w. Morrill, vs.. Augustus o.
Bourn. Attorneys - q. IT Brown for
plaintiff, G. w. Barney and A. o. Bourn
for defendant.
800. Perkins Bros. VS.. Thomas p. Bar
stow. Attorneys-Page q Owen for
plaintiff, B. L. Dennis for defendant.
$3.50. Angelina V. Burnham vs.. Provi-
dence * Worcester Railroad Company.
Attorneys-G. j. West for plaintiff, w.
Il. Vincent for defendant.
1l0. Thos. Wilson administrator vs.. ".
Y, N. IT,, a III. X. X. Co. Attorneys-G.
J. West for plaintiff, w. B. Vincent for
defendant.
120 Donald McCullum adr. VS.. Same.
Attorneys-G. j. West for plaintiff, w. h.