Volume 1 — Edwards's Chancery Reports

John Hunter granted to Daniel Pearson a lease for seven years from the first day of May, 1828, of a house and lot of ground on the corner of Pearl and Collect streets, in the city of New York, at the rent of $500.

In the course of the Vice-Chancellor’s opinion in this case, relative to exceptions which had been taken to the answer of one of the defendants, his honor made the following observations:

In this case, the petitioner had attained the age of twenty-one years; and he prayed his guardian might account, without shewing that any thing was due or in the hands of the person who had acted as guardian. 1st. Because the guardianship was at an end; and therefore, the proceeding was wrong in point of form.. 2d. The party who had acted as guardian could only be called upon through a bill of complaint. And, 3d, there was no allegation of any thing being due.

This was an application, by a petition, on the part of the public administrator, Silvam~s Miller.

This cause had been set down upon the calendar by the defendant.

In the course of taking testimony on the part of the complainants before the examiner, the solicitor was examined as a witness. Upon a certain question being asked Mm, he refused to answer it, and put in a demurrer, alleging professional confidence. The examination was continued upon other questions put to the witness, and his deposition was completed.

<p>The circumstances of this case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.</p>

The complainant had filed a bill of foreclosure and sale as a first mortgagee against the defendants the Ministers, Elders and Deacons of the Reformed Protestant Dutch Church in Orchard-street in the city of New-York, on account of the interest being in arrear. In this bill, the other defendants were made parties, as holding subsequent mortgages.

In the year 1823, the defendant and Isaac Freeman entered into a written and sealed contract with the complainant, to find the materials and do the mason’s work of a new dwelling-house in the city of New York; and for all this, they were to have $4,000; one half in cash, by instalments, (the last payment in October, 1823, when the house was to be finished) and the other half or “ balance of $2,000 was to be paid in land at one dollar “ per acre”—lying onGreenbriar river in…

The defendants had been attached for not paying certain costs of exceptions taken to their answers, and for not putting in further answers. The court had allowed a moderate time for the filing and answering of interrogatories. On this day the same were read; and the court decided, that the defendants had not purged their contempt.

This case came before the Vice-Chancellor on exceptions to a master’s report, allowing certain exceptions which had been taken to the answer of George Freeborn, for insufficiency.

The complainant and defendant had been partners as watchmakers. The former became dissatisfied with the latter and a bill was filed for a dissolution of the partnership and for an account. It appeared by the bill, that the complainant had taken into his own possession the stock in trade. He now, by a petition, asked for a receiver.

A bill of foreclosure was filed in this cause on the second day of February, 1827. The bond and mortgage upon which the bill was founded were executed by Thomas B. Clarke, deceased, the father of the defendants, Catharine H. Williamson, Isabella M. Clarke, and Bayard Clarke, on the fourteenth day of October, 1820, to secure the payment of |950, and interest, within one year from the date of the said bond. The mortgage comprised fourteen lots of land.

This cause came before the court upon the construction which a master had given to the will of Casper Samler, deceased, in relation to the share of a deceased daughter. He had reported upon the point in favor of the children which the defendant, John N. Greenzebach, had had by the deceased’s step-daughter. An exception was taken to this report.

In this casa, Ogden Edwards, Esq. as Vice-Chancellor of the first circuit, had granted a general injunction, and allowed of the appointment of a receiver. Appeals were had; and by an order of the Chancellor, dated at Albany, on the twenty-first day of June, 1831, the orders granting the injunction and appointing a receiver were vacated, with costs.

The petition of Timothy Hedges, the father of the above infants, Mary Rutgers M'Crea Hedges, and Catharine Ann Hedges, had been presented to the injunction master of the first circuit, in pursuance of the 151st and 152d general Rule of the court. This petition, amongst other things, set forth the real and personal estate in the city of New York to which the said infants were entitled.

The bill was, filed for a divorce a mensa et tlioro. A petitian was now presented, on the part of the wife, for alimony and money to carry .on the suit. Affidavits, tending to criminote the wife, were read in opposition. Mr. J. Radcliff, supported the petition. Mr. J. P. Hall, contra.

This cause was on the calendar upon bill and answer. Mr. C. Graham, now presented a petition, on the part of the defendants, for leave to prove- receipts at the hearing of the cause.

This cause came before the court upon bill and answer. The bill stated, that John Coulter of Philadelphia, being the owner 0f the ship Nancy, shipped a cargo on board of her at that place, amounting, at the invoice price, to 151,432 33 ; and' consigned the same to the master, in order to be sold for the 'account of him, the said Coulter; That the said ship Nancy, .Tames Selby, master, sailed, with her cargo on board, from Philadelphia on or about the twenty-fifth day of July…

Sarah Byrne and Richard B. Fletcher; two of the defendants, were partners in business, under the firm of Byrne & Co. Having become insolvent, they made an assignment of their stock in trade, on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1829, to the defendants, JohnS.

One of the defendants in this suit was a member of a firm in the city of New York, but resided at Boston in the State of Massachusetts. The usual application for publication and appearance within four months was made, under the provisions of 2 R. S. 186. sec. 122, 123,124.

Mr. Murray Hoffman, on the part of Mr. D. 8. Jones, moved the court, on the usual affidavit of the issuing of a subpoena in this cause and the residence of the defendant in the state of Connecticut, for an order that the defendant appear and answer within four months, pursuant to the statute, 2 R. 8. 186, § 123.

The complainants having amended their bill in pursuance •of leave granted, (see ante p. 46.) a motion was now made by them, as stockholders of the Mercantile Insurance Com-pony, for an injunction to restrain the further operations of the company and for the appointment of a receiver of all its property and effects, with a view (after payment of debts) to a distribution among the stockholders generally: in effect, to dissolve the corporation and wind up its affairs.

<p>It seems, where a tenant covenants to pay rent and the premises are burnt? he is still liable and equity cannot relieve him.</p> <p>But where a tenant covenants to yield up the premises in good repair at the end of the term, damages by fire to the manufacturing house excepted, “and “in case of such accident the rent was to cease;” It was held, although upon such accident the rent ceased, still the term did not, the tenant could hold until the term had expired, and he was not liable in chancery for a reasonable rent as for use and occupation.</p> <p>Chancery will often grant a second, and sometimes a third, fourth, and even fifth trial of a feigned issue, in cases where a court of law would not disturb a first verdict.</p> <p>It seems, where a feigned issue is awarded to try a suggested forgery in a receipt held by a complainant, the defendants are bound by the same rules of evidence as if the party was upon his trial under an indictment for a, forgery.</p>

was a merchant at,Boston. The defendant, Nathaniel Littlefield, resided in New York, and was also a merchant. On the second of April one thousand eight hundred and' twenty-eight, the former wrote to the latter to purchase a quan-¡j-y 0f Mobile cotton on their joint account and ship it to him (Cunningham) at Boston, to be sold on such joint account, provided the defendant could purchase it at a limited price for his bill on the complainant at sixty days.

The bill in this case was filed for a divorce a mensa et thora. Upon an application for temporary alimony, a reference to a piaster had taken place; and upon the coming in of his report, an order for such alimony was made. The defendant had made default in paying if, and was consequently attached and imprisoned.

The bill in this cause stated, that the complainants were possessed of a large quantity of hemp lying in a store at Brooklyn ■on storage under the charge of one of the defendants, Wakely, who was the storekeeper; that the latter, intending to commit a gross fraud, caused upwards of ten tons of the hemp to ho taken out clandestinely in the night time and removed to the city of New York, without the knowledge, or consent of the complainants; that the defendant, Dietericht,…

The complainant hired of the defendant, for the term of ten years, four lots of ground fronting on Canal street in the city of New York, at an annual rent of five hundred dollars.

Tims cause came before the court upon exceptions taken on both sides to the master’s report. It will be unnecessary to detail the circumstances of this case, as the only general important principle arose upon the accounting of the defendant, David Gardiner, as administrator, &c. of Alexander M'Lachlan deceased: whether he should be charged with interest, and if so, should it be simple or compound interest? Upon this point in the cause, the following observations were made by

On *he fourteenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and twelve, one William Foster executed a mortgage in fee of certain real estate in the city of New York, of which he was seize(l in fee, to Rem Williamson of Kings county, to secure the payment of one thousand and one hundred dollars with interest, This mortgage was duly acknowledged and registered a^out yle Qf jtg jate_ Afterwards, on the third day of September one thousand eight hundred and fourteen, the complainant…

The following are the leading facts in this cause and upon which the decision of the Vice-Chancellor was given: On the twenty-fourth day of October, 1827, the complainant, Gurdon Buck, sold to John Grimshaw two hundred and twenty bales of cotton at ten cents in the pound. By the terms of sale, the cotton was to be paid for in cash on delivery; which was to be made on or before the third day of November then next ensuing.

The bill in this cause sought to establish a will made by one Joseph Idley, and which, it was alleged, had been cancelled or destroyed… Held: he the said Joseph Idley told the said friend that if his said will was not right he wished him to have it made right; that the said friend of the said Joseph Idley did thereupon call upon a gentleman of the law and requested him to draw a will for the said Joseph Idley: that the said gentleman shortly thereafter, either on the same…

This cause came before the court on bill and plea of the defebdant Aaron Sergeant. An answer was attached to the latter. The bill was filed by the complainants as judgment ereditors of Aaron Sergeant, after a writ of fieri facias had been returned unsatisfied.

This was an application, on the part of the petitioners for an order sanctioning-an assignment, by way of mortgage, to the New York Life Insurance and Trust Company of a legacy bequeathed to the petitioner Letitia Stuart,. The petition showed Letitia to be one of the daughters of Teunis Bergh, who had died on the fifth day of August one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight; also, that the deceased had duly made his will, which had been proved by his executors.

The question in this cause involved the construction of the will of John Fleetwood Marsh, deceased, in some very important points» The complainants, Sarah Marsh and… Held: that each were entitled, that is to say, all four to six hundred pounds. He did this on the authority of Tompkins v. Tompkins, cited from the Register’s book; and see Scott v. Fenhoulet, 2 Bro. C. C. 86; and Stebbins v. Walker, ib. 85. The ground for the decision was, that it was a mere slip in expression.

<p>if the context of a will affords sufficient evidence of the identity of the person intended as a legatee, the will alone must be looked to in order to clear up the difficulty and determine the question.</p> <p>But if the context fails or after examining the whole of the will it is still impossible to ascertain from such a source alone who is the proper person to take, then recourse must be had to paroi evidence.</p> <p>In no case, however, is the bequest to be deemed void for uncertainty as to the person, provided the person intended to take can be identified by any competent evidence. Where neither the will nor the extrinsic evidence is sufficient to remove the ambiguity in respect to a devisee .or legatee, the devise or bequest must fail from uncertainty.</p> <p>If a legacy be given to a person by a correct name but with a wrong description or addition, the latter will not Vitiate the bequest, but will be rejected. In the present case, a legacy was left “ To Mary S., wife of Nathaniel 3., “ $300.” Mary S.’s husband was named Abraham and Sarah S.’s husband was Nathaniels. Upon extrinsic evidence and circumstances: it teas held, that Mary Smith was intended. '</p>

The bill in this cause was filed in behalf of the creditors of Beecher Porter, who had assigned his property to the defendants, William A. Woodward and Edward Kellogg, for the benefit of those persons to whom he was indebted. His failure took place at Columbia in South Carolina on the thirteenth day of February one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six.

The bill in this cause was filed for the purpose of subjecting the estate of Amos Canfield deceased, to the payment of a debt of five thousand dollars alleged to be due to Palmer Can-field, son of the decedent and a complainant in the present suit. Amos Canfield made his will so as to pass real esta,te.

■ The bill in this cause was filed t© restrain perpetually the defendant, Alfred Crommelin, from proceeding in an action of ejectment for one undivided seventh part, and the one-third of another seventh part of a lot on the notherly side of. Oak street in the city of New York; and to compel him to release the ■same to the complainants.

The bill in this cause was filed by the assignees of the late Daniel D. Tompkins, under a Voluntary deed of assignment made the fifteenth day of January one thousand eight hundred and twenty-two, conjointly with the trustees appointed to subscribe for stock of the Fulton. Bank in the city of New York on his account, under the eleventh section of the act incorporating the bank, passed first of April one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four.

The facts in this case sufficiently appear in the opinion the court of the court. It came up on bill and general demurrer for want of equity.

Batid R. Lambert of the city of New York had given to the defendants, George Crookshank and John — M'Gill, respectivcly, bonds and mortgages, for securing moneys honestly due to them, upon different parts of his real estate in the city of New York, A long time after, and on the seventh day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, he gave a bond at the custom-house for securing the duties upon goods imported by him.

Augustine H. Lawrence, of the city of New York, Esq. duly made his will on the eighteenth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three. He was then a widower.

The bill in this cause was filed by the wife against the husband for a divorce a mensa et thora, on the ground of cruelty. It distinctly set forth the time and place of marriage and the name of the minister who officiated at the ceremony. The pleading was sworn to. An application was now made for temporary alimony and money to carry on the suit.

The complainant was a judgment creditor of Thomas Freeborn; and after execution had been returned nulla tona, he filed his bill. Held: as is believed, by the Mechanics’ Bank “ of the city of New York.” The party of the first part then grants certain lots of ground in the city of New York, and also assigns all his foundry apparatus and articles of trade and also a steamboat, (subject to á mortgage) unto the party of the second part: “ In trust to- use and Operate…

ThE bill in this cause was flIed for pâatition of the real estate of which John Fisher of Brooklyn, Kings county, died seized. The matter came up on bill and answer. The deceased~ John Fisher, had made a will, which the surrogate of King's county admitted to probate. On an appeal to the Chancellor, the surrogate's. decision was reversed, upon the grou~ids of insanity and restraint. The particulars of the case are reported in 1 Paige's 0; R. 177.

Ay action had been brought by the defendant against the complainants in the marine court of the city of New York to recover ninety-nine dollars and fifty cents upon a promissory note. The latter filed a bill of discovery to aid their defence at law, and required the defendant to answer upon an allegation of usury. An .injunction was also obtained, which restrained the proceedings in the marine court until an answer could be put in to the bill.

This cause came up on bill and answer. The only question for the court to decide was, whether, since the Revised Statutes, executors of real estate, having discretionary power to dispose of it by the will, could make a valid sale by auction short of a six weeks advertisement. Moses Judah, the testator, made his will in the month of April, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one.

Bill by the wife against her husband for a divorce a mensa et thora on account of alleged cruelty.

.On the third day of August one thousand eight hundred and thirteen, Jeremiah B. Taylor, the father of the complainant, was burnt to death at a fire in the city of New York, leaving a wife and five children. Public sympathy was excited. A subscription was opened amongst the firemen of the several fire companies for the relief of the family; and about eight hundred dollars were collected.

The bill in this cause was filed to foreclose a mortgage; and o o ’ the question before the court was, as to the extent of title in the mortgagor at the time of granting it, in consequence of the infancy of two of the persons who had conveyed the premises to him.

Tina case cams before the court on exceptions to the report of a master allowing exceptions to the defendant’s answer, for impertinence. The bill was filed to compel the defendant to pay or endorse a draft which had been given for the purchase of a quantity of dried fish for the West India market, and which draft, by inadvertence or mistake at the time, had not been endorsed.

The seven complainants in this cause were members of St. Stephen’s Church in the city of New York: a Protestant Episcopal institution.

This cotise Caine before the court on exceptions to a master's report allowing exceptions to answers for insufficiency. But there was only one exception taken to the answer of the' defendant, Levy, which contained any important point of practice. The bill Was filed by the complainants as judgment creditors of the defendant Solomon Levy, Senior. The debt originated in a large and, alleged, fraudulent overdrawing of account at the Mechanics’ Bank.

The bill in this cause was filed by a husband for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii. A feigned issue had been awarded; and the jury found the wife guilty of adultery. No-decree had been made upon the coming in of the issue and postea: but the complainant, after the verdict, married again. An application was now made for arrears of temporary alimony.

The defendant had obtained an order from the Vice-Chancdllor, under the 125th Rule of the court, for further time to answer; and he served a copy of it upon the solicitor for the complainant. The latter, considering it to be the practice that an- order upon such chamber order should be entered and served, treated the copy served upon him as a nullity: and took the bill pro confessa before the additional time so granted had expired.

Exceptions to the defendant’s answer were taken for insufficiency. One of them was submitted to, while the others were referred. The master considered the latter as not well taken and was prepared so to report—principally upon the ground, as to one or more of them, that, although there was an interrogatory, still there was not a sufficient foundation for the exception in the charging part of the bill.

The question here was, how far service of process in the city of New York would be good during an election for charter officers ? Writs of Subpoena and Injunction had been served upon the defendant. A motion was now made, that these writs and all subsequent proceedings should be set aside and vacated, and the injunction be dissolved, with costs.

Garrit Hyer,in his lifetime,took Alexander Bremner, Jacob Burdett and Benjamin E. Bremner into partnership. The latter person, afterwards, retired. Walter E. Hyer, subsequently} was a partner. Alexander Bremner died in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five; and Dinah Bremner became his administratrix. Upon Garrit Hyer’s death, Walter E. Hyer took out letters of administration to his estate and effects.

The opinion of the court in this case turned upon the questian, whether a judgment of the court of errors, in the subject matter now before the court, was a good defence to the present bill ? Considerable litigation had been had between the parties at law. All this, as well as the facts, will be found sufficiently referred to in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor.

Almira Geraerdt, the daughter of the defendant Hannah Geraerdt, was the owner of a moiety of an estate in the island of St. Croix in the West Indies. In the month of September one thousand eight hundred and twenty she intermarried with Augustus C. Rainetaux; but pre» vious to the marriage, she and her husband entered into articles, by which the income of the estate was settled upon themfor their lives, with remainder to the issue of the marriage.

This was a bill calling upon a guardian and the administrator of another guardian to account. The facts were these:— In February, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five, Isaac Varían and James Anderson were appointed, by the court of Chancery, guardians of the persons and estates John Forrester and Gertrude Forrester, who were infants; the former was then about seven years of age, and the latter nearly four years old.

Under this petition, the real estate of an infant was directed to be sold. The amount of the widow’s right of dower had been calculated by the master. She had married again, but lived separate from her then husband, one James Caherty.

Tras case came up on exceptions to a master’s report, founded upon exceptions to the separate answer of the defen^ant Louis Delestré Goris and the joint answer of the other defendants, Joseph W. Allen and John D. Clute. The questions principles of pleading which are explained in the opinion of the court. A statement of the allegations will also be sufficiently detailed in the decision. •

<p>The circumstances of this case are sufficiently detailed in. • the opinion of the court.</p>

The complainant had filed a bill, as a judgment creditor, upon a judgment for 8106 93, debt on bond, (in the penalty of 8200,) and 86 37 costs, recovered in the Marine Court of the city of New York.

Tuis~ was a ijiII filed for a di'~orce a m~ns~ et thoro. Tl~e husband had applied to the court to stay proceedings in the suit, until a more responsible next friend was appointed or the complainant should give security for costs. This application ■was opposed; and the court decided that the present next friend was a person of sufficient responsibility. From this i , , . determination the dctendant appealed. An application was now made for temporary alimony.

. as an act of the Legislature, passed the twenty-fourth day of February, 1832, the Brooklyn Bank was incorporated, with a capital of two hundred thousand dollars, divided into ten; thousand shares of twenty dollars each. Seven commissioners1 were nanjec[ jn the act, to open books and receive subscrip-' tians to the capital stock.

This cause came before the court on exceptions to the master’s report, allowing,one exception and disallowing another taken for impertinence to the answer of the defendant. Each party excepted to the report. The excepted parts were contained in schedules attached to the answer, and are sufficiently referred to in the opinion of the court. “ The bill was filed for the purpose of compelling the defendants to account as trustees 'and executors.

The complainant was a judgment creditor of the defendant, Charles Bisbee; and having issued a writ oí fieri facias, which had been returned unsatisfied, he filed his bill in this court for a discovery of property to be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment.

The bill in this cause was filed by a wife against her hus- ^ w band for a divorce, on account of alleged adultery. A petition was now presented to the court for temporary alimony and money to carry on the suit. This application was met by an affidavit and copy of a separation deed, dated the twentieth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two.

The first of these suits was by the wife against the husband for a divorce a mensa et thora, by reason of cruelty.' The charges in the bill laid a sufficient foundation for the bringing 0f jf; an¿ the same was filed prior to the suit which was instituted by the husband against the wife for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii on account of adultery.

IN this ease, the complainants were judgment creditors of the defendants; and, by their bill, they called for a discovery of property belonging to their debtors, which they had been. unable to reach by execution~ at law.

The bill in this cause was filed to foreclose an equity of redemption and for the purpose of obtaining a sale of mortgaged premises. Held: free from the control of her husband. And it appeared that from the time the trust was relinquished in one thousand eight hundred and eight, down to the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, the-complainant (the husband) received the interest on the bond and mortgage as it became due.

<p>The complainants by their bill laid claim to certain merchandise, which arrived at the port of New York from St. Bartholomews in the schooner Try on, and obtained an injunc^on Restraining the defendants from parting with the bills of lading or property.</p> <p>Afterwards, the merchandise was sold and the proceeds brought into court.</p> <p>The circumstances upon which the complainants founded their claim were these :—</p> <p>The defendant, James C. Bates, was indebted to the complainants separately upon promissory notes. He applied for an extension of time to pay them; and proposed to direct the proceeds of a cargo he had previously shipped to St. Bartholomews to be consigned to the complainant, Charles De Forest, for the purpose of paying such debts.</p> <p>In confirmation, he, in the city of New York, addressed the following letter to one De Lisle, of St. Bartholomews, dated the 31st of January, 1832:—</p> <p>u Please ship to the fc-dress of 31r. Charlee Us Forest the “ proceeds of whatever you may have belonging to me,-and, “ if possible, by the schooner Tryon, behaving made me an •“ advance thereon.</p> <p>“ Yours, &.c.</p> <p>“ J. C. BATES.”</p> <p>This letter was given to De Forest; and on the same day it was shown and delivered to the defendant, Russel Chapman, who was about to sail in the schooner Tryon for St. Bartholomews, and who gave Mr. De Forest a receipt in these words:</p> <p>“ Received a letter, of which the above is a copy, from Mr. “ Charles De Forest; and I engage to use my best endeavours “ to facilitate the shipment and give the property the direction “ intended. New York, January 31st, 1832.</p> <p>“RUSSELL CHAPMAN.”</p> <p>The property was received from De Lisle at St. Bartholomews by Chapman, and he returned to the city of New York with it.</p> <p>Upon its arrival, the defendant, Bates, refused to permit the delivery of it to the complainant, De Forest; and such refusal led to the filing of tho present bill.</p> <p>The defendant, James C. Bates, set up in his answer, by way of defence, that he agreed to consign the return property to the complainant, De Forest, upon a condition and promise from the latter that no suits at law should be prosecuted against him upon the notes; yet, in violation of this understanding, Mildeberger, the other complainant, continued to prosecute a suit or suits against him upon the notes which he held, and recovered judgment thereon about the twenty first day of February, one thousand eight hundred and- thirty two : in consequence of which, as he insisted, the order became a nullity, and the complainants had no equity under it. Independently of this, he also insisted, that the order upon De Lisle never had a legal operation or effect to pass any right or title to the complainants; for, as he alleged, almost immediately after delivering the letter and procuring Chapman’s receipt to De Forest, he became satisfied he was doing wrong in giving the complainants such an advantage over his other 'creditors, ancj accor(j¡ng]y wrote on to Chapman, countermanded the, order and directed the property to be brought-to him. And the answer also set forth, that Chapman thereupon treated the first order as annulled, and received the property from De Lisle in the capacity of supercargo or as agent for the Bates; and also, that Chapman did not exhibit to De Lisle the letter which had been given in favour of De Forest, but concealed from him all knowledge of its existence. The defendant. Bates, admitted that he was insolvent; and that the property in question was not sufficient to discharge the debts due to the complainants. • ■' .</p> <p>On the twenty second day of March, one thousand eight and thirty two, he assigned all his property for the benefit of his creditors generally; and in his answer he submitted that his assignee was entitled to take in preference to the / . ■</p> <p>No objection was made to the want of parties.</p>

This was a bill to redeem. Oliver Wolcott, the complainant, owned a house and lot known as No. 30, Pine-street, in the city of New York. He was desirous of obtaining the sum of five thousand dollars, by way of loan, upon it.

The question in this cause arose upon rights which Elizabeth Brown claimed under the will of her deceased husband, Gilbert Brown. This Gilbert Brown, by his will and codicil thereto, made certain specific bequests of personal property to his said wife, Elizabeth, absolutely. He also devised certain parcels of his real estate to her for life, subject to the powers given therein to his executors.

On the twenty-eighth day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, Russell Atwater, the complainant, and Theodosius Fowler, the defendant, entered into a written . agreement.

This was a hill for an account. By an assignment, bearing date the twentieth day of January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-eight, the complainant granted and assigned all his estate, both real and personal, to the defendants, Lenox and Taylor, and one Stevenson, since deceased, as joint tenants; upon trust, after paying some preferred debts, to divide the residue of the proceeds of the assigned property amongst such other creditors as should come in under the…

TEE bill in this cause was filed for the partition of certain lands which one Abraham Van Geldor, the former husband of the defendant, Martha, now the ~vife of Solomon Wheeler, aliened during marriage, without her having~ been a party to the deed of conveyance. Subsequent to the alienation, her husband, Van Gelder, made his will.

In this suit the bill was filed by a wife against her husband for a divorce a vinculo matrimonii, on the ground of adultery. The defendant suffered the bill to be taken as confessed; and upon the usual reference to a master, the husband’s counsel went into an enquiry, on the cross-examination of the complainant’s witness, to show a condonation of the offence.

A feigned issue had been directed in this cause, for the purpose of trying the question of fraud in relation to an assignment made by one defendant to another of partnership property. It was lately tried; and the jury, being unable to agree upon a verdict, were discharged. 1 ' A motion was now made, on the part of the defendants, for leave to read their answers in evidence at the next trial of the issue.

The bill in this case was filed for the purpose of foreclosing an indenture of mortgage executed by Alexander C, Jackson and Robert M'Jimsey and their respective wives, upon a piece of land situated in the fifteenth ward of the city of New York to secure the sum of thirty-two thousand dollars with in-ta-mat ’ _ At the time the mortgage was given, the mortgagors were partners in trade.

fe appeared upon the face of the bill in this case that the * - complainant resided out of the jurisdiction. The suit had pro-grossed as far as taking of exceptions to the defendant’s an- ° swer- _ Mr. D. D. Field now moved for ax order reaerríng the complainant to give security for costs. Mr. F. S'.

JvD~M~NT creditors had joined in this case to set aside a deed of assignmenL The defendant, John Moffat, was formerly in extensive busi- mess in the city of New York as a dry goods merchant. • In the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, and the beginning of one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, he contracted a large amount of debts. Being then unable, from sickness, to attend much to business, his affairs became confused and he embarrassed.

This was a bill to reach property and' choses in action after the return of a writ of fieri facias at law, nulla bona. The defendant, Jacob Blackwell, appeared by solicitor ; and a copy of the bill was served, with notice of an order being entered requiring him to answer within forty days or be attached. He gave a consent to be examined personally pursuant to the 191st rule of the court.

<p>The bill in the first cause was brought for foreclosure and a sale ; and for a decree over against Laytin, the mortgagor, for any deficiency.</p> <p>The second suit was upon'a cross bill, filed by the mortgagor, to have the mortgage delivered up and cancelled ; as well as for a return of the money paid by him on account of the purchase of the mortgaged premises, at the time he gave the mortgage for the balance.</p> <p>In the first instance, the defendants therein interposed a plea; but this had been overruled. They then answered ; and both causes were heard together upon pleadings and proofs.</p> <p>On the twenty-fourth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, the complainants in the first suit, (defendants in the second) as executors and trustees of the estate of Elizabeth Depeyster, deceased, and under a power contained in- her will, offered for sale,- by auction, six lots of ground in the city of New-York, belonging to her estate: three of the lots were represented on a map exhibited at the time of sale as fronting on Broadway between Fourth and Sixth ^Street;, and the remaining three as adjoining the rear and fronting on Mercer Street.</p> <p>William Laytin became the purchaser of two of the lots, at the sums of three thousand dollars and one thousand three hundred dollars. One of the lots fronted on Broadway and the other was immediately in the rear. He paid one half of the purchase money; and gave his two bonds and the mortgages in question, upo-n the two lots, lor securing the residue.</p> <p>The conveyances executed by the executors to Laytin, the purchaser, stated, by way of recital, that Mrs. l>epeyster,in her life time, and at the period of her decease, was seized in fee of the lots. The deeds purported to grant and convey the same in fee, with all the estate, right, title and interest which Mrs. Depeyster had at the time of her death, and which the executors, as grantors, then had by virtue of her will, as otherwise. Each conveyance contained a covenant, that the executors “ had not done, committed or suffered any act, matter or thing “ whatsoever whereby to charge or encumber the premises 5< thereby granted or any part thereof in title, estate or other* 5‘ wise howsoever.”</p> <p>The two lots thus sold and conveyed, were situated within the present bounds of Fifth Street, and extending from Broadway to Mercer Street. This street (Fifth Street) was not laid down on the general map of the city which had been made and published by the commissioners under the act of the Legisr lature in one thousand eight hundred and seven ; nor was such street delineated on the map exhibited at the auction when these lots were sold. It appeared, however, that the corporation of the city of New York caused a map to be made, which was kept in the office of the Street Commissioner, whereon Fifth Street was laid down as a contemplated street; and, that in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one, the executors and trustees of Mrs. Depeyster’s estate, with a view to a sale of some portion of it, procured a map to be made of the same, laying out the property in lots and numbering them. On this plan, Fifth Street was also delineated as an intended street, in the same manner as on the map in the Street Commissioner’s office. By the one thus procured to be made by the executors, and with express reference to it, they sold some lots in the month of January one thousand eight hundred. and twenty. Among them were three, purchased by Mr. Whittemore. One of them was desciibed in the deed which the executors executed to him as bounded North-easterly by “ Fifth Street.”</p> <p>In the summer of one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, the corporation of the city of New York caused proceedings to be instituted for the purpose of opening the part of Fifth Street which comprised the lots in question. The executors had remonstrated against it. Notwithstanding, commissioners of estimate and assessment were appointed. The circumstance of making the map with the street laid down upon-it, the fact of the executors having sold by it, and the mention of the street in the conveyance to Whittemore, were urged before the commissio'ners, by persons interested in the opening, as evidence of a perpetual right of way over the land required for the street; and,- although it was opposed by the executors and by Laytin, yet the commissioners, considering such a right of way to have been created and that Laytin’s title was subject to the easement of a way which rendered the lots of nominal value only, awarded to him five dollars for the loss or damage which he would sustain in consequence of relinquishing his title and interest in the two lots. Their report was subsequently confirmed by the judges of the supreme court, after a hearing before them upon objections duly taken.</p>

The complainants filed their bill to be relieved from thq consequences of an alleged error or mistake in a deed of three thousand one hundred and nine acres of land in Ma-comb’s purchase, Franklin county. They prayed to be quieted. in their title ; and that the defendant might be perpetually enjoined from enforcing a certain judgment against the land and from otherwise disturbing the title.

In the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-three, the defendant Oshea Wilder was in-London.

The principal question arising in this cause was, whether a deed had been so far consummated by the late Daniel D. Tompkins as to vest in his daughter Mrs, Thompson a title to the six acres of land, which it was the object of the bill to have secured to her against the claims of the defendants and especially against the effect of the judgment held by the executors of her grand-father Mangle Minthorne, deceased?

Mr. J. Radcliff moved upon the petition of six infants (the eldest nineteen years of age) for leave to have a special guardian appointed, with power to sell, but without being compelled to give security.

This was a bill in the nature of a judgment creditor’s bill. The judgment at law for seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars and sixty-five cents, had been recovered by the Frank•lin Bank against the defendant John Russel. That insti■tution became insolvent and got into the court of chancery ; ■and James Kent, Esquire, was appointed the receiver of its estate and effects. A writ oí fieri facias had been issued on the part of the bank; which was returned unsatisfied.

The hill in this cause was filed to compel thé spécific'pérformance of an agreement'for the purchase of a house and lot aj Ellenville in this state.

The Bill in thy? suit was filed by the complainant, on behalf of himself and all others stockholders of the National Insurance Company who should come in and contribute to the expenses 0f the suit, against Frederick Depeyster, Isaac Lawrence, Benjamin L. Swan, John Bolton, Jacob P. Giraud, Thomas Lawrencé, Joseph Grinned, Philip Hone, Richard Rikcr, William Whitlock, jr., James K. Hamilton, James Heard, David Had-Louis F. Varet, Cornelius W. Lawrence, Francis H. Niohol,…

A bond and mortgage had been given to the complainant by one Alexander C. Jackson and the defendant Robert M'Jimsey; and a bill for foreclosure was filed, Alexander C. Jackson had died prior to the commencement of the suit; and at that tm-ic, no letters of administration of his estate had been granted to any person.

The particulars of this case will be found at page 241. ante. Questions of interest upon the amounts decreed to the complainant now came before the court.

On the twentieth day of October one thousand eight hun-' ¿[:rod and eighteen the plaintiff gave his note to one Benjamin Case for two hundred and fifty dollars, under seal, payable on demand, with interest; and, to secure the payment, he, at the same time, mortgaged to the said Benjamin Case certain premises at Southold in the county of Suffolk. The mortgage contained the usual power of sale.

The bill was filed by a judgment creditor ; and the defendant admitted he had tools, furniture barely sufficient for himself and his three children, clothing, and a claim as the next of kin to his son Hiram Lupton, deceased, for a distributive share of his estate in the hands of an administrator, but could not say what amount would be coming to him on a final settlement of his son’s estate; and that, whatever might be realized therefrom was all the estate of every kind…

A bill for partition. It was filed by Edward C. Matthews, as one of the children of James Matthews, deceased, intestate, against his brothers John R. Matthews, James R. Matthews, William A. Matthews and Francis H. Matthews. A part of the ■U estate embraced by the bill was situated at Brooklyn and the rest of it in the city of Now York. Three of the defendants, namely, James, William and Francis were minors. The bill was filed about twenty days after the death of the father.

A case in partition. The property had been sold ; and the share belonging to one of the defendants, a married woman, paid into court. Her husband was not of age ; but she was a little over twenty-one. A general guardian of the husband, upon the usual security, had been appointed by the surrogate. The wife released her share to the guardian in trust for the husband; but for no money-consideration. He now applied to receive it.

This cause, came before the court on an exception to the •V master’s report allowing an exception to the answer of the defendant for insufficiency. The ground of exception will be found sufficiently referred to in the opinion of the court.

This bill was filed against Francis Graham and wife, by the daughters and son-in-law of the latter, claiming an account as children of one Grayson an intestate who had been the first husband of Mrs. Graham. She was entitled as his widow; and an order had been therefore entered allowing the defen- . . ° dants maintenance out of money m court.

This was a bill of foreclosure, and a decree was had, ordering two lots of gropnd with the buildings thereon to be sold by a master in the usual manner.

THE deeretal order in tins case made on the eleventh da~ of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three, the right of the complainant to participate in and receive ~t share of the warfage of a certain bulkhead or wharf in the city of New York; and directed a reference to a master in order to ascertain, by evidence, the customary mode of wharfage among the proprietors of such property and to take an account of what should be due to the complainant from the defendants…

The bill in this cause was filed by a judgment creditor, to reach choses in action, after a return of nulla bona to a writ of fieri facias at law.

The compFainant filed a judgment creditor’s Bill, after the return of an execution unsatisfied. He had recovered one hundred and thirteen dollars and thirty-one cents debt and costs on, a bond in the Marine Court of the city of New York.

The bill in this cause wasfiled by the complainants, as mem~: hers of the consistory of the reformed presbyterian congregation worshipping in Chambers Street in the city of New York, in the city of New York against the defendants, to restrain them from interfering with the funds of the church or inviting or permitting a minister to occupy the pulpit or to interfere with the temporalities, unless duly accredited by the Southern Presbytery under the direction of the Eastern…

Thomas Betts, the elder, at the time of his death, was seized of lands and other real estate in the counties of Kings and Queens ; and by his will, dated the twentieth day of February one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, he bequeathed and devised his property as follows: Item.

The motive for this bill was to have a bond given up, which it was alleged had become inoperative, On the twentieth day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty nine, the complainant Mordecai M. Noah was the sole proprietor of a newspaper in the city of New York called “ The New York Enquirerand on the same day he sold the whole establishment to the defendants, James Watson Webb and Daniel E. Tylee, for the sum of thirty-five thousand dollars.

The sworn bill in this cause was filed in the month of Jo.auary one thousand eight hundred and thirty two. Minott was a defendant; and he put in his answer in the month of February following. The other defendants had not answered. Cross motions wrcrc now made : the complainant sasking leave to amend ; and the defendant Mitchell moving that the bill should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

A question came up in this cause between two in relation to a fund in court arising fron~ real ~state as to which had a preference. The first judgment, in the supreme court, was docketted against Samuel Kip on the ninth day of Juno one thousand eight hundred and twenty, on behalf of Nicholas Fish, executor of Stuyvesant; and it was revived by scire facias in or about the month of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one.

Lv the month of February oiio thousand eight hundred and thirty-one the defendant Thomas W. Storrow shipped a box of specie on board one of the Havre packets at New York. He took from the master a bill of lading, in the usual form, for the safe delivery of the specie at Havre. He also effected an insurance upon it with the complainants.

A suit in partition. The property had been sold; but the buyers refused to complete their purchases.

Ii~ this case (of foreclosure) the original subp~na had been duly filled up, signed and sealed; but what purported to be a copy, served upon the defendant, -had a blank left for the day and month of the return. No appearance had been put in; and upon an affidavit of due service, the bill was taken pro confesso. - A motion was now made to set the proceedings aside.

A bill for foreclosure and sale had been filed ; a decree had; and a surplus fund of eight thousand nine hundred and thirty-four dollars and forty-six cents remained in court.

The principal questions in this case arose upon the supposed right of the defendant Henry M. Western to have the amount of certain debenture certificates set-off against judgments obtained on custom-house bonds, so as to stop interest (so far as the amount of the debentures would extend.

On the tenth day of September one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one the complainants entered up two judgments, amounting together to the sum-of-ffve thousand four hundred thirty-one dollars and eighty-seven cents, in the Superior court of the city of New York, against the defendants George G. Willis and William C. Robinson.

<p>The defendant had applied for a commission to examine a witness in the state of Virginia. Counsel attended on the part of the complainant and joined in the commission, and gave the names of two witnesses to be examined on the part of his client. After an order had been entered for the issuing of the commission, the solicitor for the defendant proposed to the so? licitor. for the complainant to appoint a day and time on which to serve simultaneously the interrogatories for the examination of the witnesses on the part of the respective parties, The latter declined doing so: claiming the right to have the direct interrogatories for the examination of the witness on the part of the defendant served on him and he to have some days thereafter to serve the interrogatories for the examination of the witnesses on the part of the complainant.</p> <p>A motion was now made “ for an order that the complain- “ ant serve on the defendant’s solicitor and that the defendant v serve on the complainant’s solicitor, within six days from the “ date of such order, the direct interrogatories proposed by “ either party for the examination of witnesses to be examined “ under the commission ordered to be issued in this cause ; and “ that each party do respectively serve on the solicitor of the “ other the cross interrogatories proposed to be administered to “ sucl\ witnesses within ten days from the date of such order. “ And that all such interrogatories, as well direct as cross, be fi settled by the vice-chancellor at his chambers on the fifteenth <> day of June next or on some other day to be fixed upon by “ him. And for such further order as the court may see fit to “ grant.”</p>

FoitECLOstrstE bill; and the question was upon the priority 0f a judgment. The mortgage had been given for part of the purchase money1, and was so expressed on its face : but the mortgagee failed to record it until the thirteenth day of Feb- ° ° ruary one thousand eight hundred and thirty two, prior to which time the judgment had been docketted against the mortgagor. The property embraced by the mortgage was leasehold.

The defendant had been a linen draper in London, under the name of David Marfleet. It appeared by the bill that, during the month of April in the present year, he had made numerous purchases of goods and merchandize of the complainants, Frederick Wiltshire and Thomas Massey, who wore partners as merchants, also living in London. These purchases amounted to about five hundred and fifty-one pounds sterling. No securities had been taken.

This was a bill of foreclosure. The complainant, in searching for liens, had found a judgment in favor of the United States against one Moses Jarvis ; and, presuming it to relate to the defendant Moses W. Jarvis, the United States was made a party. The district attorney had received a written stipulation, from the solicitor for the complainant, that his costs of appearing and putting in an answer should be paid to him.