Year: 1876

In the Superior Court General Term, batch OF de-
cisions handed down yesterday with accompany
ing opinions in most Of the cases. Only few involved,
however questions OF public interest and abstract
OF these is given below


Conrad Boiler brought suit against the city to re-
$s1 900 claimed balance OF rent due for
tain buildings occupied armories and drill rooms,
the having been leased by the Boari OF Superv
at rental of s36 900 year. on behalf OF the
city II is claimed that the Board of Supervisors had
power to tho lease except under the military
todc 1t admitted at the trial in ihe court below
that the lease was executed without any demand hav-
ing been made upon the Board OF Supervisors
quired by the military code, but II was claimed that
this. was not material and that II was not evidence
the District Court This was overrulcd and
verdict directed for the city. The General
rcrm to which the carried appeal, It's
decision, Judge Sanford writing the opinion holds
that the Board OF Supervisors had power TO execute
The tease, and tnat nasmuch the court which the
Judgment was entered was local and OF limited char
lcter could be attacked collaeraly that the officer
Dr. magistrate giving judgment exceeded his jurisdic
honal power by giving unauthorized adJournmcnts,
md tnat the judgment was void on It's face IL IS held,
further that the estoppe claimed by the plaintiff does
not legally exist, and the exception taken in this re-
gard therefore oyerruled aud judgment ordered Tor
bhe city on the verdict


An important decision was also rendered growing
out OF the suit brought by the city TO some
300 900 alleged TO have been wrOngiuy appropriated
~ Mr. Starkweather during his once Of Collector OF





lrial Mr. Starkweathor died. motion made
Special Term TO continue the action his
tentative. This motion granted, and the suit
then continued against Mrs Lucinda II. Starkweathcr
ldministratrix or the deceased Mrs Starkwcather
appealed from this order, and the General Term
now afnrms IL, Judge Mcneil writing lengthy opinion
m the The principal point was whether after the
death OF Mr. Starkweathor the cause of action
Viyed continued under the provisions of the codo
aud the statutes governing such This
prosecuted under n special statute providing that
where tho money property OF any corporation has
been improperly detained or disposed Of the people
shall have right OF action for the and for dam
ages for such wrongful conversion.


The Court dec ded appeals IN three suits against ral
road companies The first is tho suit brought by Will
lam Sutherland against the New York Central and
Hudson River Railroad Company In this case the
plaintiff undertook TO the track at Forty seventh
street, whom ho struck by passing locomotive,
had one arm broken and foot crushed In the lower
court verdict was given In his favor. The
appeal the ground of contrbutvo negligence.
but the testimony seemed TO leave doubt to
whether the engineer ringing his bell al the time
On this ground new trial s granted the opinion being
written by Judge Sanford In the next case being the
suit brought by Mrs Davis against the Third Avenue
Railroad Company to recover damages on account of
her husbands death, which is charged the negli.
Ecnce OF the company, the Court arms the judgment
below which vas In favor of the plaintiff In the SUIT
OF Hamilton against the same company, In which a
verdict gwen against the latter the Court denies
the motion TO permit the defendant 10 carry the
70 the Court OF Appeals


The verdict In The Of Mrs George Wright against
the Equitable Life Assurance Society, TO recover on
policy OF 600 her husbands e has been reversed
and trial ordered. new trial Is ordered the
Did suit OF Magnin, Gardner Co. against Adams EX.
press Company brought 10 recover the value OF pack
age TO Memphis Tenn, and In which verdict was
xven for the plaintiffs The has already been four
times to the Court OF Appeals