85e5635aNone
Click image to open full size in new tab
A decision was made by the Supreme Court on SatFurday, in the case of Leavitt, Receiver of the North American Trust Company, against J. Horsley Palmer and others. The object of the action was to invalidate a large portion of the securities of the old North American Trust Company-some $2,000,000 value. The decision, dismissing the Receiver's bill, was adverse to the object above stated.
Click image to open full size in new tab
The Is pendens does not prevent parties from which they had before suit brought The Court may, in per uliar circuinstances so far anticipate the judgment as to interrupt those rights, but this is by special order only. seems to be understood that the Corporation have no desire to continue the proceedings, unless the Bank shall be compelled to go without compensation for the building That makes it unnecessary to inquire whether the Commissioners' proceedings are void, as contrary to the resolution of the Common Council. If the Corporation had such desire, it might be necessary to KO into this last inquiry also: as then the proceedings would go back to the Commissioners so correct. SUPERIOR COURT Stosson, Hiram V. Mason age the St. Mark's Fire Inst rane Co. To recover $2,000, amount of a policy of insurance in favor of Edgar M. Mason on a stock of cabinet furniture uphoistery & contained in two adjoining stores in Hudson and destroyed by fire it al- leged. on 4th October last, the loss by said fire having been $5,000 and upward-that plaintid assigned the claim to defenis brought. suit and dant. In defense it is said that the valuation of loss was excessive; also that the transfer or assignment, was not in good faith, but the claim still held by plaintiff, and the assignment made contrary to clause in the charter which prohibited it except by permission of the Com is on. case The pany Before Judge OAKLEY Samuel Westcott ngt. Alexander N. Gunn and others. Plaintiff alleges that he held mortgage on valuable furniture in possession of Henry J. Duff-that defendants seized said furniture and sold it on execution for $75 issued out of Justices' Court against Duff. Plaintiff claims, under his mortgage, to have owned the furniture and brings action to recover $650, the alleged value. In defense it was alleged that Mr. Duff, in fact, owned the property. which is demied. The case has been up before. Verdict for plaints $800 and interest. SUIT AS TO PROPERTY IN CHRYSTIE-ST. George C Quakenboss agt. Huldah Gregory Plaintiff claims to have been heir, under will, to share of oneseventh part of the estate of his father, John Quackenb - that de fendant is in possession of two lots in Christie-st. belonging to said estate. and the present action by plaintiff is to recover said one seventh part, &c. In defense it that John Quackenb as never owned said lots, or, if he did, that it was under deed made in 1784, for the benefit of himself and Henry Kipp, and that in 1736 he con veyedhis part said Henry Kipp and that plaintiff nor any of his ancestors were in possession said lots within the last 20 years. The Judge stated that the point in the case turned on questions of law, and directed the Jury to find a verdict for plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the full Court, at general term. CAMPBELL Before Judge Robert Miller, assignee of claim of Benjamin Engelhardt, agt. Westfall. John Plaintiff savs that said Engelhardt having occasion one evening, to go to the house of person, and in doing 80. would be obliged to pass the Five Points. & placed, for safe keeping, in the hands of Mr. Westfall $750 in cash, and $150 in a note. but that Mr. West fall declined to return it to him again, but paid it over to Henry Kohnert on on alleged agreement between said Engelhardt and Kohnert that E. should buy out the liquor store of Kohnert. Plaintiff says that Engelbardt declined to purchase said store, and that the money was given to Mr W for safe keeping wholly, without refer ence it and that said Engelha assigned the claim to plaintiff, who brings suit to recover back said $900 In defense was said that a gular agreement was made between Kohnert and Ingelhardt for the latter to purchase the stock and good wi of store of K No. 348 Water-st. for cash and $150 note: that they came to Mr. Westfall's place, and it was agreed that E. shou buy the establishment of K provided the consent of the landlord of No. 348 should be given to the transfer of the lease: that they went together on the evening in question to obtain the consent of the landlord and previous todoing Engelhardt placed in the hands of Mr. Westfall the $750 cash and $150 note to be paid by Mr. West fall to Kohnert on the consent of the landlord to the transfer of lease being obtained that it was obtained, and Mr. Westfall paid to Mr. Kohnert, agreeably to directions of Mr. Engelhardt, the money and the note It was said that Enge !hardt had been a sailor: that he went out to ifornia and some money and returned so New York; and being desirous of going into business partially made agreement hase the store in question, but declined ultimately to do so. TL stated that Enge hardt refused to take possession, and Kohnert, after the money being paid him, refused to retain the store. The landlord subsequently we understood. levied upon the stock for rent. The question for the Jury was whether the money had been placed in Mr. W estfall's hands for wafe keeping, or with orders to pay it to Mr. Kohnert. If the latter, he would be justified in doing so, although Englehardt refused to take possession. The Jury, after being about an hour in consultation, returned a verdict for plaintiff for $900, Before Judge DUER. IN R E ASE. Joseph Schlowser assignee of claim of Charles Manly, agt. the New York Union Insurance Co It is stated that Mr. Manly in 1852, effected policy for $1 000, et the office of the company on his works at Greenpoint, adjoining W illiemsburgh, on running to H on what was known 88 the Chemical W orks; that said works were destroyed by fire on 29th Dec. 1852 by which Mr. M. sustained loss of $4,000; that the company refused to pay the loss in question, and Mr. M assigned it. for valuable consideration, to plaintiff, who brings snit. In defense it is said that the amount of loss W88 greatly overrated, and also that the assignment of the claim was made in contravention of an express clanse of the policy, which prohibits it except by con sent of the company and that on either ground the policy was for feited. The points were demied. The case is on. SUPREME Judges MITCHELL, ROOSEVELT and CLERKE. METHODIST BURIAL GROUND CASE. Smith Hicks agt. the Corporation of the Associated Methodist Church York. of New of the City The Association consists of five Methodist Churches on the east side of the City Their burial ground was situated on the corner of First-st. and Second av Not being able to continue its use, owing to the general ordinance of the Common Council IMP Come tery. they obtained leave recently to sell the ground, and purchased an acre ground at Cypress Hill Cemetery, near Brooklyn and W illiamsburgh, to which to remove their dead and were proceeding to do NO. when considerable excitement, it will be recollect occurred among parties having friends buried there, and others. The plain tiff n this case came in claiming an injunction to prohibit the removal of certain remains, whom he claimed to have been relatives and friends. temporary injunction was granted prohibiting the Church from disturbing the dead and an order show cause why it should not be rendered ermanent When it came on for argument the plaintiff not appearing, the injunction WIME set aside by default. Application WH# then made to open the default which the Court partly granted, on terms. so far as related to the bodies referred to by plaintiff, the order stating that the injunet on shall be continued so far as relates to the eight bodies alleged in the complaint - being buried in said cemetery and said to be the relatives and friends of plaintiff; but as to them also, the in junction to be vacated unless plaintiff within ten days serve an amended complaint, which should state the names of said eight per sons, the time when buried, and the place, as near as can be ascertained where buried. the amount of money paid for the burial each and the posticular church to which paid; and on service of said amended complaint the default to be opened. The plaintiff appealed from the decision, and the matter came up yesterday. Order on decision of Special Term affirmed. NORTH AMERIC AN TRUST COMPANY. Lewis Curtis and others agt. David Leavitt, Receiver, and others. This is a motion in relation to what is generally known the Million Trust cause, and which has been in the courts for several years. The case heard last December by Judge Edwards, and decree rendered. Application was made yesterday by Mr. E. Sandford that the Court should sestle the draft of decree. As Judge Edwards heard the case and is best able to settle the decree, an order was made that the subject stand over till his return. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. William S. Miller agt. the Company and Robert and George L. Schuyler. Plaintiff avers that he agreed with Messrs. Schuyler by which he was entitled, on the Company increasing the amount of scrip, to 562 shares but that Measrs. S. aver that he was entitled to but woshares; that Robert Schuyler was the President of the Company, and caused plaintiff's name to be left out as regarded his proportion of the new stock, &c. The suit is to compel the Company to issue to him 560 shares of the stock. and for damages. In defense, it was said the transaction alluded to was between Messrs. Schuyler and plaintiff, and that the Company were not bound to apportion to plaintiff any of the new stock. The Judge at Special Term ordered that the plaintiff should be allowed to examine the books of the Company, &c., from which order appeal is made to the General Term Argement was presented. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-Before Judge WOODRUFF. SUIT IN BEHALF OF FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Department of New and York Butler agt. James Wright. Wright, Albert W. Wright, To recover penalty on 8 bond given by James Wright, agent of two Foreign Insurance Companies as they are termed, (that is, companies chartered by other States and doing insurance business, through agents, in New York,) conditioned to pay. agreeably to law, to the Fire Department Fund two per cent. on all the moneys they receive for premiums. They were required to enter into bond with that view. Mr. Wright was agent of two companies, the Reliance Mutual and the North American. He paid the two per cent. for two years, but then declined to do so, alleging that the law of the Legalature authorizing it was unconstitutional. The present is brought. It was acknowledged that the two per cent. ungaid would have amounted to the sum expressed in the bond. The Court stated to the Jury that they are to consider the plaintiff as entitled to verdict, and that they are to remier it accordingly One of the jurors, Mr. Burtis Skidmore, said a was his belief that of the law was unconstitutional, and he felt doubt about the propriet) that his rendering such a verdiet. [Mr. S. considers, we understand, the Legislature would have $ good right in tax the agent of ho sends flour here to sell as it has to tax the agent of hand, company is in which sends its money here for insurance. On the other the 45 said the out-of-tewn companies contribute nothing toward pense of the Fire Department, and it in but just they should -