Volume 2 — Edwards's Chancery Reports

a mow Belden, for an account of his agency of their estates. The bill also sought to set aside a conveyance made by Captain Frederick Philips, and Samuel Gouverneur and j\pary his wife to Amos Belden, of a farm on which he reg-¿e¿. an¿ the complainants claimed payment of large sums of money growing out of his agencies, alleged to be due to the said Frederick Philips at the time the bill was filed, both in his own right and in his character of administrator of Mrs. Ogilvie.

This case involved a question as to the effect of a purchase of real estate by copartners. Alexander C. Jackson and Robert Me. Jimsey had been copartners in trade, under the firm of Jackson & Me. Jim-While they were such partners, they purchased a ^arSe amount of real estate with the funds of the co-partnership; and they both joined in mortgaging the same property.

This case came before the court upon demurrers taken by the defendants Robert Morris, junior, John Delafield and Charles Rhind to the whole of the complainants bill.

Bill by Duncan Phyfe, the lessor of certain real estate, against Charles Wardell and Britain L. Woolley, as purchasers, in order to compel payment of purchase money and ohtain specific performance of a contract.

This was a bill by a bond creditor against the devisees of a deceased obligor, for an account and payment and satisfaction out of real estate. The bond had been given on the sixth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, by Jonas Farrington (deceased) and George Farrington, junior, to the complainant, conditioned to pay one thousand dollars, with interest.

<p>Whenever the right of administration devolves upon an infant, the proper course is, to grant administration to his guardian or some other person durante minor* aiate. If, through mistake or inadvertence, the office has been conferred upon an infant, it may be revoked by the surrogate.</p> <p>An infant administrator is responsible for all acts done after coming of age and before revocation. A court of equity regards him as a trustee and compels him so far to account: but not with respect to assets which came to his hands during infancy.</p> <p>There is not the same strictness or difficulty in suing here upon administration bonds as at law; cor do the same rules apply.</p> <p>Notwithstanding the R. S., chancery has power to inquire into any alleged devastavit by an executor-or administrator and to bring all persons before it who may be interested in the question.</p> <p>A court of equity will no more subject a surety in an administration bond before a devastavit is proved, than a court of law.</p> <p>Where an administrator, committing a devastavit, is dead, equity will, before action establishing it, take cognizance of a suit against his sureties or their representatives and the persons interested in any estate which he may have left, and make them liable for waste or misapplication of assets. But this would not be done in an ordinary case where the administrator is in full life and within the reach of a court of law or the surrogate’s court.</p> <p>A creditor holding a specialty debt due from an intestate and coming against the estate of his administrator, on account of a devastavit, can only take equally with such administrator’s simple contract creditors; while his sureties must make up the balance.</p> <p>E. M. died intestate and indebted to the complainant’s testator in a money bond. J. E. M. administered on the effects of E. M., gave the usual bond, with sureties, in the surrogate’s office; and committed a devastavit. J. E. M. died; and a bill was filed by the complainant’s testator against the administratrix of J. E. M., one of the sureties and the administratrix of the other sureties, for the purpose of fixing them on the ground of this devastavit. The bill was Held to be, as to parties, well filed; and also, that the complainant would have to come in amongst the simple contract creditors of J. E. M., and the sureties make up the balance.</p>

The bill had been filed for a partition or sale; and the estate was sold under a decretal order. Philemon H, Frost became the purchaser, but raised objections to the title; and a reference was had to a master to look into and examine the objections. One of them was: that the bill had been taken as confessed against William F. Kholer, described as an infant in the bill, nor had he appeared or answered.

The bill in this case was filed' for the1 purpose of obtaining an amount of money in the hands of an administrator of & trustee, which was claimed by the surviving trustee» On the thirtieth day .of November one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, Moses Q.. Wood assigned his proper,ty to the complainant, Philip Hart, junior, and to Walter R. Wood, since deceased (two of his creditors), in trust to pay Ms debts.

The object of the bill in this cause was to obtain the benefit of a set off. The Defendant,- Matthew W. Confieft, had hired premises of thé complainant, James H. Hackett, tinder a xvritten léase. In the month of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, Connett filed a bill in this cotirt against Hackett, charging a breach of covenánt, and praying that the latter might bé prevented from collecting rent.

<p>By our practice, it is not necessary for a vendor, under a covenant to convey, to make out and tender a deed on the day the purchase is to be completed. He is not bound to prepare it until the buyer is ready to demand it; and even then, the vendor is allowed & reasonable time to draw and execute the deed. And after being thus drawn and executed he is to bold it ready for delivery when required; and he is not in default until the latter request is made. Although a purchaser may prepare the deed ¿and tender it .for execution (and then only one demand is necessary) yet still the above appears to be the set* tied law of the State.</p> <p>"Parties entering into a contract may make time the essence of it.</p> <p>A short delay, indeed even a delay for a length of time fairly accounted for and so as to repel the presumption of a waiver or abandonment of the contract, will not, ordinarily, deprive a party of his right to a specific performance. But, where the vendor requires and the purchaser agrees to make time a condition of the contract and they insert the same a< a distinct and substantive part of the agreement, it must be kept.</p> <p>Distinction between conditions precedent and subsequent.</p> <p>Equity cannot relieve from the consequences of a condition precedent unperformed. Bui upon the breach of a condition subsequent which would work a forfeiture or divest an estate, a court of equity, acting upon the principle of compensation, will interpose apd prevent the forfeiture or divestment, provided it can be given with certainty in damages.</p> <p>S. sold to XV. a lot of land. By an agreement under the hands and seals of the parties, XV» covenanted to build within a certain time and give a bond and mortgage for a part and pay the balance or give a bond.and mortgage for the whole by -a specified day; and S. covenanted to give a deed on this day. There was also a clause expressly showing that the agreement was, in all respects, to be void, provided XV. failed to perform any one of the covenants. XV. entered, but, from untoward circumstances and not from any act on the part of S., was mot ready with his money or the bond and mortgage on the day specified in the agreement: but made a tender on the next-day: Held, to be a condition precedent and that the court could not relieve.</p>

The late colonel Henry Rutgers made his will and also added several codicils to it. By the will, he directed his executors to pay the sum of one thousand dollars to Henry Rutgers Stagg, the complainant, which he gave and bequeathed to him for ever.

<p>Counsel have no right to advise a witness who is before an examiner, that he is not bound to answer a particular question.</p> <p>If the witness objects he should demur.</p> <p>It is the duty of the examiner to inform a witness of his legal lights.</p>

<p>This case arose before the Chancellor. The President, Directors and Company of the City Bank had filed a bill of interpleader; and paid into court the sum of seven thousand four hundred and sixty dollars and ninety cents, being the proportion of a reward of ten thousand dollars offered by them for the recovery of a large sum which had been stolen from the bank.</p> <p>After the chancellor had ordered a reference to a master, for the purpose of ascertaining who, amongst the defendants, was entitled to the fund: (See 2. Paige’s C. R. 570.) The cause was referred to his honor the Vice-Chancellor of the first circuit: and it now came before him on the master’s report.</p>

Judgments’ at law had been- obtained by the complainants respectively against the defendant Abraham Stagg. TheLtter had recovered a judgment against his co-defendant Graham, and the bills in the above causes were filed to prevent the same being collected by Stagg, but so that theamoun^ 0f them might be applied in liquidation of the several debts due the complainants.

The bill was filed by one partner against another, praying an account and payment pursuant to the conditions of an award to which they had both submitted. The defendant had put in his answer; but several exceptions for impertinence were taken to it; and the matter of these exceptions now came before the Court upon exception to the master’s report.

A bill was filed by the complainants, on behalf of themselves and other creditors, against their debtors Sidney Curtis and Cornelius L. Demarest, as co-partners, and persons who had obtained judgments against them by confession. These judgments were charged to have arisen upon ual debts, and not legally payable out of the co-partnership property in preference to the co-partnership debts.

read a petition for the appointment of a speeial guardian. It was in the usual form ; with the injunction master’s report of sufficiency, &c. But it appeared, that the party proposed as guardian was a part-owner with the infant in the property intended to be sold and was also a creditor against the infant’s share.

The bill was filed by the wife against the husband, in the month of June one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, f°r a divorce on the ground of adultery. Application was now made for leave to withdraw the replication (which had been put in after a supplemental bill) and to amend or be allowed to file a further supplemental bill: in order to set forth acts of adultery committed by the husband since the original bill was filed.

The original bill in this cause was filed against Joshua Dyett and Jesse Ann his wife, William Hamersley and William Chapman. This bill set forth (amongst other things) a settlement made on the marriage of the said Joshua Dyett and Jesse Ann, then Jessy Ann Hunt, and wherein William Hamersley and Michael Dyett were trustees. That William Chapman afterwards was a substituted trustee under it, in the place of Michael Dyett.

A question of set off. On the eighth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, John Moffat made an assignment °f his stock in trade, consisting of dry goods, to Messrs. Hall and, Swan, intrust for the benefit of his creditors ; and upon certain conditions specified in the assignment.

An application wás made to compel John Bonsall to make good his purchase of premises which had been sold under a decree of this court in a foreclosure suit. The premises had been conveyed By the complainants to Moses Cammet and Amaziah Turner and a mortgage was given back for a part of the purchase money. Some months afterwards, Turner conveyed his undivided half-part to Moses Cammet. The latter made his Will; and, died.

Bill to dissolve the co-partnership and for an account. An injunction had been granted. The defendant put in his answer. Cross motions now came before the court: one, on the part of the complainant, for a receiver; and, the other, by the .-defendant, to dissolve the injunction. The co-partnership had commenced on the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three ; and was to continue for five years.

A motion to obtain further directions to a master or for a rehearing or other relief.

The complainant had given a bond and mortgage to Samuel Titus and Amos Willets, two of the defendants; and after-wards sold the mortgaged property to the defendant Francis Graham, subject to such mortgage. The bill was filed to compel the defendants Titus and Willets to foreclose their said mortgage or to release and discharge the from liability or that the defendant Francis Graham might be ordered and decreed to pay off and discharge the' bond and mortgage.

The complainant had filed a bill of interpleader in relation to a promissory note transferred to the defendant Samuel Jamison, junior, by Solomon Johnson, another defendant. The complainant Leonard and three of the defendants, viz : James R. Whiting, Joseph N. Barnes and Cornelius Read, who were trustees of the estate of Solomon Johnson, an absent or absconding debtor, all resided within the State of New York. Samuel Jamison, junior, was a resident of New Orleans.

<p>The bill in this cause was filed for the purpose of ascertaining the effect of certain articles of agreement entered into between the complainant, Alexander Robinson and one John Sharp, (since deceased) on the first day of May, one thousand eight hundred and nineteen ; and the question for the court was, whether a mortgage had been created or only a conditional sale had taken place ?</p> <p>In the year one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, John Sharp was seized of a considerable real estate at Brooklyn, consisting, amongst other property, of eight lots of ground designated on a map by the numbers 277. 278.279. and 280. fronting on Willow street, and numbers 281. 282. 283. and 284. adjoining in the rear and fronting on Columbia street. A large mansion house had been erected at the joint expense of Sharp and the complainant and was so placed that one half of it stood, upon the lot No. 282. and the other half upon No. 283. In order to vest a title in the complainant to one half of the house and four of the lots, John Sharp and Henrietta his wife executed to him a conveyance, dated the tenth day of December one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, for lots numbered 277. 278. 283. and 284. It contained full covenants against incumbrances; and, a warranty. The consideration expressed in the deed was six thousand and five hundred dollars ; but no money was paid at the time, because Sharp was then indebted to the complainant—and a future settlement of all accounts relating to the previous indebtedness and to the building of the house was then contemplated.</p> <p>On the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, Sharp was largely in arrear with the complainant; and they then entered into an agreement, which was drawn op by Sharp, and executed under their hands and seals—to the purport and effect following; Sharp agreed to convey to the complainant the whole of the house and eight lots, free from all incumbrance, except a mortgage previously given thereon to Jacob and John M. Hicks for one thousand dollars and interest from a certain day, which the complainant was to assume and from which he was to keep Sharp harmless, “ said sum of one thousand dollars being allowed by the party of “ the first part” (Sharp) “ out of the purchase money of said “ lots.” In consideration of which, the complainant agreed to cancel and give up a certain account-current signed by Sharp on or about the sixth day of July one thousand eight hundred and seventeen (the balance being three thousand two hundred and ninety-three dollars and eighty-one cents) and all interest due thereon; also, to cancel, assign or to make void two bonds and mortgages executed by Sharp and his wife to the complainant in the year one thousand eight hundred and sixteen upon property at Williamsburgh and Newtown and then held by way of collateral security for a prior indebtedness, one bond and mortgage being for fifteen hundred dollars and the other for two thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, with all interest due thereon; likewise, to assign, cancel or make over a mortgage given by one Hildreth for four thousand five hundred dollars, which covered four of the lots and other property owned by Sharp and all the interest due thereon, and which mortgage the complainant held by assignment from the mortgagee. All these things were to be completed without unnecessary delay. Sharp further agreed to lease to the complainant part of the ground near the mansion house, which he held under lease from Jacob and John M. Hicks, for nineteen years, at a ground rent of thirty-five dollars per annum and taxes. The agreement then concluded with the following clause : “ the “ party of the second part,” (the complainant) “ hereby gives “ the party of the first part,” (Sharp) “ the privilege of re- “ deeming said house and lands within one year from this “ date for the sum of eight thousand five hundred dollars and “ any further money laid out of advantage to said house ac- “ cording to a certain account, and the mortgage to Jacob “ and John M. Hicks, without any further interest thereon, ‘‘ the rents being considered equivalent for any interest, to “ be the party’s of the second part from the date of this.”</p> <p>Shortly after entering into this agreement, Sharp and wife, in fulfilment of it, executed another deed of conveyance in fee simple to the complainant of the remaining four lots, subject to the Hicks mortgage; and this deed, bearing date the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, and the one previously executed under date of the tenth of December one thousand eight hundred and seventeen (and which deeds comprised the eight lots) were duly acknowledged by the grantors and recorded on or about the twentieth day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen.</p> <p>The complainant, Alexander Robinson, entered into possession of the whole of the premises and had remained in possession ever since. Sharp resided within or in the neighborhood of the city of New York until his death, which occurred in the month of July one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four; and never offered to redeem or repurchase the property from the complainant. As respected the fulfilment of the complainant’s part of the agreement of the first day of May. one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, it appeared that he paid off the mortgage of one thousand dollars held by Jacob and John M. Hicks and caused it to be cancelled; and also cancelled and gave up the Hildreth mortgage, of which he was an assignee, and thereby enabled Sharp to sell the other parts of the property which the latter mortgage covered, and out of which sales Sharp paid, in the year one thousand eight hundred and nineteen, to the complainant, for the purpose of liquidating outstanding bills incurred in building the mansion-house for which Sharp and the complainant were jointly liable, the sum of one thousand dollars. There was no proof of the complainants having ever given up or of his cancelling the account-current mentioned in the agreement; nor of his afterwards attempting to make any use of it as against Sharp or enforcing payment of the balance. Still, the mortgages upon the Williamsburgh and Newtown property he did not give up or cancel, but on the contrary, having been sued jointly with Sharp for a demand growing out of the building of the house (beyond what the one thousand dollars was intended to compensate) and a recovery being had and the amount of it paid by the complainant, he filed a bill in this court in the month of April one thousand eight hundred and twenty four in order to enforce the mortgages made upon the Williamsburgh and Newtown property and to be reimbursed. He alleged it to have been a part of the agreement of the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and nineteen—although omitted in the writing by mistake or through fraud of Sharp—that the mortgages were to remain for his indemnity against the demand thus put in suit. The cause came before the chancellor, who held, the mortgages were valid liens for the amount which the complainant had been obliged to pay; and his honor decreed a foreclosure and sale for the purpose of satisfying the same. The property was sold; and out of the proceeds the complainant was reimbursed.</p> <p>The bill in the present cause was filed in the month of December one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven. The defendants (except Edmund Kirby and Maria his wife,) were Henrietta the widow and Jane Sharp and others children of John Sharp deceased; while Kirby and wife were creditors by judgment recovered against Sharp in his life time.</p> <p>The bill alleged that, notwithstanding the complainant intended and supposed himself to be contracting for a purchase of the property, subject to the right of Sharp to repurchase within one year and not after, yet he was then advised that £jle jeec|s 0f conveyance of the property, taken in connection with the agreement (which was an instrument under seal and recorded) might be deemed a mortgage and not a conditional sale, in which case the heirs and judgment creditors of Sharp would be entitled to redeem ; and, although no right of redemption was set up, yet he was apprehensive lest, at some future day, such claim might arise, and was, consequently, desirous of having the nature and extent of his estate and interest in the property determined by the court. He prayed to have the agreement decreed to be one for a conditional sale ; and, inasmuch as Sharp had not availed himself of the condition of repurchasing the property, that the estate and title of the complainant might be declared absolute and free from any lien, claim or equity of redemption by virtue of such agreement: or, if the conveyanees, taken in connection with the agreement, made the estate and interest of the complainant a mortgage right only, then that an account might be taken and the defendants be decreed to redeem or be foreclosed and the premises sold to satisfy the amount which should be found due to the complainant, with costs of suit.</p>

Bill by husband and wife to carry into effect an appointment of the wife in favor of the husband, executed under a power contained in an ante-nuptial settlement. The defendants were the trustees of the settlement; and the property embraced bv the deed of appointment (being the avails of real , J , . , . . \ ° . , and personal property) had been reduced into cash and was in the possession of these trustees.

David Marsh the elder, by his will, dated the thirteenth day of June one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, after directing payment of his debts and devising a house and lot of land to his daughters for life, with remainder in fee to his grand-children, disposed of the residue of his estate in the following words: “ I will, order and direct that all the residue and remainder of my real and personal estate be sold, after the expiration of one year from the time of my…

The bill in this cause was filed in the month of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one for forclosure and a sale of mortgaged premises ; but the important points in it related to the priority of a judgment.

Gouverneur Morris, by his will bearing date the twenty sixth day of October,-one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, appointed his widow, the complainant, Mrs. Ann C. Morris, executrix and the defendant an executor; and accompanied w£tfa a bequest to the latter in these words :—“hereby giving my said executor ten thousand dollars for his care and trouble in executing that office.” Two days afterwards he made a codicil, by which he empowered the executor and executrix to…

The complainants were judgment creditors of Myer Levy and Ebenezer Henriques, who had made an assignment, on the twenty second day of November one thousand eight hundred and thirty two of their property to the defendants Solomon I. Joseph and-. A bill was now filed to overthrow the assignment as fraudulent on the ground of its trusts tending to delay, hinder or defraud creditors.

The bill (which was sworn to) contained no prayer for subpoena. An injunction had been issued, under the allocatur of the master; and, served. The writ of injunction was loose in its terms.

The bill had been sworn^to ;~and an injunction granted. After appearance, a copy of the bill was served. Neither the copy nor the original on file was signed with any counsel’s name. A motion, on this ground, was now made by one of the defendants to take the bill off the files or for such other order as the court might grant.

<p>to cuita for separation, where the complainant provea hii or her case, the form of the decretal order settled by chancellor Kent is to be used.</p>

The bill was filed by the Complainant, John W. Palmer, as a judgment creditor, whose execution had been returned nulla hona,' against the defendant John L. Van Doren. motion was now made “ that the defendant be examined as a witness for the Complainants under such restrictions as the court might think proper to imposeand for other relief.

This case came before the court on exceptions to a master’s report alio wing exceptions to an answer for insufficiency. There was only one point of moment, namely, whether a defendant answering as to knowledge, without adding his information, was sufficient.

<p>A complainant filing a judgment-creditor’s bill and failing to discover property, must pay costs on its dismissal.</p>

The bill was filed by Charles Lawton and by Thomas C. Williams and William H. Mann, partners under the style of Thomas C. Williams and Co., on behalf of themselves and •all other creditors of the defendants Hyman Levy and Henry Levy, partners under the firm of H. & H. Levy, in order to set aside one of the trusts of a deed of assignment as fraudulent.

Bill of infants under fourteen years of age by their father and “ guardian of their persons and estates,” against the executors named in their grandfather’s will, for the payment of legacies to them “ or their said guardian.” By the will of Benjamin Hilton (the grandfather) the children of his daughter Susan, and who were the complainants, had the sum of six hundred dollars bequeathed to each of them and to be paid when they should each attain the age of twenty-one years or…

<p>Where a deed of property which ought to have been made by the ancestor and in which infant heirs have an interest, is directed to be executed, their guardian ad litem signs for them. And adult parties must execute in their own proper persons.</p>

Bill to set aside an award, on the ground of corrupt conduct by the arbitrators. The latter were made parties. All the defendants joined in an answer and plea.

Bill by wife against husband for divorce a vinculo matrimonii. A reference had been had to a master to take proof of the facts charged in the bill and to report his opinion. The master reported that from the facts sworn to by the only witness produced before him (whose affidavit was annexed to the report) there was sufficient to entitle the complainant to a divorce.

<p>In divorce cases, the original testimony taken before a master is to be filed with his report and the court will not be satisfied with a copy.</p>

Exceptions to an answer. Eleven exceptions were referred to a master; and five were allowed, namely, the fourth, fifth, The defendant now excepted to eighth, ninth and eleventh, the report.

The defendants, Charles S. Matthews, Charles Woods and James Hall, were ordered to show cause on this day why an injunction should not issue, restraining them “ from trans-u u P01,ting or causing to be transported across the bridge from Harlasm across the Harlasm river any marble or stone in quantities exceeding at one time or in any one load the weight of two tons, until the further order of the court.” The' bill in the cause was filed by Samuel M. Thompson, Samuel…

Complainants were non-residents. They had given security for costs to the amount of five hundred dollars ; but, in consequence of a surety becoming insolvent, an order was made on the fourteenth day of July one thousand eight hundred and thirty four requiring the complainants to file fresh security.

<p>For)» of order upon a judgment creditor's bill taken pro confers*-</p>

Bill to establish a right to wharfage from a portion of a slip on the westerly side of the pier at the foot of JBeekman Street in the city of New York fund, for an account of the Wharf-age received by the defendants.

Nathaniel Cogswell made his will, duly executed, as lows: “First I do give, bequeath and devise, to my dear and beloved Wife Mary, my House Number 26.

The Bill of Complaint in this cause was filed for an account of the Personal Estate and of the rents and profits of the Real Estate of Matthew Reed, deceased, devised by his last will and testament. The Bill had been taken as confessed and two successive orders of Reference were made in this cause. Matthew Reed, the testator, died in the city of New-York in the month of November one thousand eight hundred and eleven.

Bill of foreclosure and sale of mortgaged premises. It had been filed in the names of Isabella J. Harrison, widow and administratrix of Robert M. Harrison, deceased, and Silvanus Miller, administrator as well of Charles Harrison as of Samuel H. Littlejohn, deceased. Isabella J. Harrison died during the pendency of the suit; and William H. Harrison, as administrator do bonis non of her husband, was made a party complainant.

Morris Woodruff died inthe year one thousand eight hundred and seven, seized of the premises now in controversy, consisting of a lot of land, with buildings thereon, situated in Brooklyn. He left a widow and also two children, namely, the complainant and Thomas M. Woodruff, who was a party defendant; and both of whom, at the time of their father’s death, were infants. The eldest was about three years of age.

A question of usury. George R. Dowdall and Edward H. Nicoll, in the month of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, projected a voyage to Canton on their joint account. It was to be performed by the ship Ajax, commanded by Dowdall. In order to effect it, Edward H. Nicoll applied to the defendant, Robert Lenox, for a loan of sixty thousand dollars, in specie.

The subject matter of controversy in this cause was the real estate belonging to the society of friends in the city of New-York; consisting of two meetinghouses, a schoolhouse and other buildings and a cemetery or burying ground.

On the third day of July one thousand eight hundred and thirty txyo, the defendants William C. Woolsey, Benjamin Poor and Erastus D. Converse made an assignment for the benefit of creditors and wherein the other defendants, Cortlandt Palmer, Jonathan Trotter and Richard Bartlett, were the trustees.

Exception had been taken to a master’s report allowing an exception to an answer for insufficiency. The object of the bill, so far as there is any present occasion to refer to it, was to ascertain the amount of one Williara Lampson’s indebtedness to the defendants on the tenth day .of November one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven, when the complainant assumed the debt and entered hito a covenant to pay it.

On the first day of February one thousand eight hundred and twenty five, the complainant demised and leased to the defendant Samuel D. Craig two lots of ground in the twelfth ward of the city of New York, for the term of twenty 0ne years, at the annual rent of thirty dollars—• subject to renewal or to pay for the improvements.

Bill by creditors of the Commercial Insurance Company of New York against stockholders, for the purpose ofmak-ng tbem personally liable. A sweeping plea of the statute of limitations had, in the first instance, been interposed; and this was disallowed by his honor the Chancellor: see, 3. Paige’s C. R. 410. The cause now came'before the Vice-Chancellor of the first circuit upon bill, answers and'proofs.

A judgment-creditor’s bill against “ Sarah Moore.” Plea in abatement: that she was married to one William Smith, who was yet living.

A contract for the purchase of premises was alleged to have taken place between the complainant and defendant. Prior to entering into it, the complainant had been in possession under a lease from the defendant; and he still held on, claiming to be the owner of tbe fee by virtue of the alleged contract.

A judgment creditor’s bill; and an attempt was made to fix the defendant as a partner in the firms of Mills, Minturn ^ ^°‘ an^ -^BIls, -Brothers & Co., but the answer and proof negatived it—and this ground was abandoned. The answer, however, disclosed furniture and other household effects to be in the defendant’s possession and. which the counsel for the complainant, John W. Taylor, contended ought to go towards the payment of his debt.

<p>In the month of March one thousand eight hundred and twenty-seven the defendants, Cornelius Low and Nicholas lOWj made a lease to Jeremiah Gorman of a lot of ground at corner 0f j\fc- Dougall Street and Houston Street in the city of New-York, for the term of twenty one years from the first day of November one thousand eight hundred and twenty-six, reserving an annual rent of one hundred dollars, payable quarterly:—with a power of re-entry in case the rent were unpaid for the space of ten days.</p> <p>When Jeremiah Gorman took the lease he was an infant of about eighteen years of age. His father had given him a sum of money and wjth this he erected buildings upon the lot at a cost of about one thousand and three hundred dollars ; and. which, were completed on the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty seven. A main part of t.hp house which he erected he underlet to one Berrian for a year and at a, rent of two hundred dollars ; another part was underlet to one Me. Leod as tenant at a rent of forty dollars for a year; and a small part was occupied by his father free of rent.</p> <p>A short time afterwards the lessee, Jeremiah Gorman, left the city and state ; and it was not known where he had gone. There were various rumours about him ; and he was reported to be dead.</p> <p>In the month of February one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight a year’s ground rent had become due; and being unpaid, the defendant, Augustus Fleming, as agent for the lessors, proceeded under the statute of 13th April, 1820, (Laws of N. Y. Sess. 43, ch. 194.) to recover possession of the premises and to put an end to the lease. For this purpose, a demand in writing of the year’s rent or of the possession forth with’was, on the fourteenth day of February one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight served upon Berrian, the under-tenant, addressed'to . him or Jeremiah ■Gorman the lessee. This demand not being complied with, application was then made to a justice for a summons, which was granted in the form prescribed by the statute ; and upon service and return of the same, such further proceedings were had before the justice that on the twenty sixth day of February one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight the justice rendered judgment that the lessors recover the possesion of the premises, and thereupon they were put into possession—and from the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight they had let the premises to other tenants.</p> <p>In the spring of the same year, one thousand eight hundred and twenty eight, Jeremiah Gorman returned to New York; and afterwards he appears to have made some application to the agent of the lessors to be restored to the possession of the property, which was refused—although the answer stated that they offered to give him the house provided he would remove it from the lot. The evidence showed it was slightly built and of little or no value to the owners of the land.</p> <p>Jeremiah Gorman attained the age of twenty one years sometime in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty ; and soon after filed his bill in this court against both the lessors and their agent, praying that they might be decreed to deliver up the premises to him under a new lease for the term or for the residue of it and the lessors account to him for the rents of the premises during the time they had possessed themselves of the property and prevented his use and enjoyment. He, however, died pending the suit; and it was revived and prosecuted in the name of his administratrix.</p>

Motion to take exceptions off the files. On the twenty-fourth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, the joint answer of Elizabeth S. Champlin, John Clark, Israel Dean and John Depeyster was excepted to for insufficiency; and, on the eleventh day of June thereafter, an order was entered referring the answer and exceptions to a master.

Bill to establish a partnership between the complainants intestate; and the defendant and for an account. The facts in this suit and the testimony adduced suEcient1 y appear in the opinion of the court.

Bill by the children of John Minchin deceased against the administrator of their father, to reach a certain sum of money which had come to his hands, upon the ground of its belonging to the complainants at the time of the father’s death and as forming no part of his personal estate. They claimed the money as a gift from their grandmother Anne Thayer, who was since dead, as being in their father’s hands in trust for them.

For a statement of this case, the reader is referred to 1st vol. page 411. - It now came up again on exceptions to the master’s report, upon the reference had by virtue of the decretal order before made.

The bill in this case was filed on the seventh day of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, by the above named complainant against the above named defendants; and on the same day an injunction was granted and issued according to the prayer of the bill.

An act*on °f ejectment in the Supreme Court, had been brought in the names of the defendants, Robert Manning, and Alfred Crommelin, against the present complainants, pauj gpofford, Thomas Tileston and Henry Raymond, to recover certain undivided parts or shares of a-house and lot, known as No. 27 Peck Slip, in the city of New York.

Exceptions had been taken to a joint answer for insufficiency, which were disallowed by the master—and they now came before the court on exceptions to his report. The answer professed to be an answer to the whole bill, in so far as the defendants were advised it was material or necessary for them to make answer thereto; and not an answer, demurrer and plea to different parts of the bill.

On the first day of June one thousand eight hundred and fourteen the defendants, Margaret DuEeld and others, by an indenture of lease, demised to one Nathaniel Howland a certain parcel of land suitable for a rope walk, situated in Brooklyn, for the term of twenty years, at an annual rent of one hundred and fifty-two dollars and fifty cents; with a mutual covenant contained therein that the buildings then erected or to be erected by the lessee and which might be standing upon…

Bill for a moiety of premises alleged to have been purchased by the complainant and defendant in common. It alleges that the complainant, John E. Ross, and the defendant, Peter A. Hegeman, who was his brother-in-law, made joint application in the month of August, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, to Charles W. Sandford, Esquire, for the purchase of two lots of ground in the Bowery.

I'he defendant, Henry Hone, was entitled, under the will of John Hone his father, deceased, to a distributive share of the rents and income of certain property devised in trust by the said John Hone. The amount of such share had averaged annually about the sum of seventeen hundred dollars ; and about a fifth of it arose out of the rents and income of real estate, while the residue came from the income and produce of the personal property.

The bill in this cause, so far as it is now to be considered, went for an account of the profits or dividends on the shares of capital stock of the American Fur Company.

A judgment creditor’s bill had been filed ; and, pending the suit and while fearing a ne exeat, the defendant had gone into Kentucky to reside. Some testimony had been taken. Motion by the complainant to dismiss his bill without costs.

Bill to compel the giving up of a bond; and, in the meantime, to restrain an action at law brought upon it.

Judgment creditor’s bill filed against George G. Sickels only.

Bill by a surviving executor, to have the trust of a will carried into effect and to account and be discharged. Answers had been put in and replications were filed. Four motions now came before the court: 1. By Peter Aymar, a defendant, to suppress the testimony of Mr. Cornelius Bogert, a party in the suit; 2.

Bill of interpleader, by James Shaw, as sheriff of the city and county of New York, filed against judgment creditors who claimed money made by him under an execution. The cireumstances of the case need not be particularly detailed, as the mind of the court was turned to the point whether such a bill in such a case could be filed by a sheriff?

Question between landlord and tenant. The defendant, Edmund Barrow, on the first day of May one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, owed rent to the complainant, Stephen Reed. On the fifth day of the same month, the defendant removed his goods from the store which he had hired of the complainant; and on the sixteenth of May, the complainant caused a landlord’s warrant to be issued, but could not find the property.

<p>Where infant trustees are ordered to convey, they arc entitled to their costs.</p>

In the beginning of the month of October, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five, the respective mercantile firms of Keeler and Mather and Keeler and Rogers were transacting business, the former at Albany and the latter in the citv of New-York. There was one general partnership of the persons composing both firms.

The complainant and principal defendant, Louis Delestre Goris, had entered into a written agreement, in the French language, relating to an operation in laces; and this agreement formed the basis of the present suit.

A judgment creditor’s bill; and the answer denied pro. petty. Upon petition, the complainant asked for a writ of ne exeat.

Motion to set aside default for irregularity, with costs. The complainants had filed notes of issue and given notice of hearing for the term : but they were waiting for a master’s report which was received after they had given such notice; and when the cause was called, they took a decree by default.

The question upon the genuineness of a receipt (in respect to its date) which had been one of the points in controversy —see 1st vol. 101,—was put at rest by the verdict of a jury upon a new trial. The receipt was found to be genuine as related to the date it bore. This was the form of the receipt: “ Reed.

This case involved the question of a conditional sale and delivery of merchandize; and how far the vendor was at liberty to reclaim the goods after he had parted with the possession, where the contract was not complied with by the vendee?

The complainants, Myer Levy and Ebenezer Henifiques, were the holders of two notes made by the defendants, James Welsh and John Campbell, as co-partners, drawn in favor of the complainants, one dated New-York 12th March 1831, for one thousand one hundred and ninety-nine dollars and two cents, payable on the twelfth day of September one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one and the other, dated 9th May, 1831, for seven hundred and thirty-two dollars and seventy-eight cents,…

Bill for specific performance of a promise to grant an additional term of ten years of premises in the city of New-York. The bill stated that the defendant leased the premises in question to the complainant, by a lease dated the fourteenth day of January one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight for ten years at a rent of four hundred and eighty dollars; he, the complainant intending to improve them at an expense of about three hundred and fifty dollars.

Bill by wife for divorce a vinculo matrimonii, on the ground of adultery. The defendant, in his answer, recriminated: but only gave a sweeping allegation of adultery committed by the complainant, without specifying name, time or circumstances.

The solicitor for the complainant had read his own affidavit upon a motion and therein reflected upon the opposite solicitor and his client; and the court underscored parts of it and upon the solicitor insisting that he had a right to be heard upon the subject of the alleged impertinence, the court directed that such parts should be referred to a master to report whether the same were not scandalous or impertinent. The master found them to be So.

A judgment creditor’s bill, under oath. An error was made in the day on which the judgment was docketted and thefi.fa. tested (the month and year were correct.) As appeared by the bill, it would seem to have all occurred on a Sunday and a prior motion (for a receiver) had been dismissed upon opposing counsel having found out the error. Application was now made, upon affidavits, to amend, by altering the date to the proper day.

<p>Bill for winding up a partnership ; and, for an account. Plea, of a submission of the matters in dispute to arbitration and an award. The plea set out the arbitration bonds, containing the submission, bearing date the fourteenth day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, conditioned to abide the award of three arbitrators “ to be made in writing, subscribed by each of them and attested by a subscribing witness ready to be delivered to the parties on or before the tenth day of February (then) next.” The plea also stated that afterwards and on the ninth day of February —inasmuch as the time for hearing the parties and making the award was not deemed sufficient—the parties endorsed upon the bonds and submissions an agreement in writing, duly executed and signed by them and sealed with the seal of the defendant, in these words :</p> <p>“ It is mutually agreed that the time for rendering the award of the arbitrators, as within, be extended to the nineteenth of February instant. New York, February 9th, 1835.</p> <p>J. Sherman, (seal.)</p> <p>Elisha Bloomer.”</p> <p>The plea then further stated that the time being so extended, the arbitrators proceeded to hear the allegations and proofs of the respective parties ; and after due deliberation, made their award in writing, under their hands, on the eleventh day of February, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five, which was, afterwards, and on the sixteenth day of February, duly attested by a subscribing witness and ready to be delivered to the parties. That the said award was, on the eighteenth day of the same February, delivered to them by the arbitrators. The award was then set out, with an averment that it was made, in all respects, in conformity with the submission and within the time for making it according to the extension agreed upon by the endorsements on the bonds; and that the powers of the arbitrators were in no way revoked or limited before the case was finally submitted to them upon the final hearing, although an instrument purporting to be a revocation was, in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of the same February, duly executed by the complainant and served upon one of the arbitrators ; and also, although, on the sixteenth day of February, another instrument of revocation, under the hand and seal of the complainant, was served upon the other two arbitrators, which declared the powers of the arbitrators to make and deliver any award entirely revoked.</p> <p>The question was, upon the validity of the award?</p>

Thomas C. Morton, by his will bearing date the twenty-sixth day of April one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three (after bequeathing several specific and pecuniary legacies) devised the residue of his estate, both real and personal, to trustees, who were also appointed executors, in trust: 1. To divide his library, as near as might be, equally amongst his five children ; 2.

The defendant, Caroline Dunham, not having redeemed the stock in the Williamsburgh Ferry Company, according to the decree made in the cause, wherein she was complainant, against the defendant Daniel Jackson—affirmed on ap peal (see the case in 6 Wend.

The defendant, William F. Baker, had brought an action in the court of Common Pleas for the city and county of New-York against the complainant, Joseph Jackson, to recover the sum of five thousand dollars, alleged to have been the amount of liquidated damages contained in an agreement. ■ This agreement was made in writing between the complainant and defendant on the tenth day of November one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one ; and by it the said William F. Baker agreed…

On the fifth day of April one thousand eight hundred and twenty-four, the Abyssinian Baptist Church executed a bond and mortgage to Joseph Warren Brackett and Samuel jLew,s for securing one thousand seven hundred and sixty-J ° v eight dollars and seventy-six cents.

The complainant, George Gibbs Junior, resided in Turks-Island, a territory belonging to the King of Great Britain; and the defendant Hypolite Mermaud was the master of the brig Felix, which had sailed from Turks Island for the port of New York.

a sale of infant’s real estate had taken place, for the purpose of paying debts ; and the amount of the sale had been brought into court. Upon an application for an order of reference to a master to take proof of debts. The Vice-Chancellor considered there ought to be a guardian ad ^iem for the children, in order to protect them from improper charges by the creditors.

<p>No part of the ancient and well established jurisdiction of the court of Chancery can be destroyed by the assumption or grant of new powers by statute to couitsof law; and it cannot be taken away, except by the express enactment of the legislature.</p> <p>Although, by the Revised Statutes, the courts of law can take cognizance and do justice incases of lost notes yet the jurisdiction of Chancery in the like cases is not gono or affected.</p>

Bill by wife for divorce a mensa et thoro, who now applied for temporary alimony and an advance to carry on the suit. Affidavits in opposition, showing habitual drunkenness and an arrangement between the parties that the wife should live apart from the husband and be allowed two dollars a week.

Judgment creditor’s bill. Plea, accord and satisfaction. jt appeareci by the testimony taken under the issue upon P*ea 1*lal on the judgment being had, the attorney agreed to take good business paper and goods in payment and settlement of the debt. Certain notes and goods were accordingly received: but the notes turned out to be worthless. There was evidence which went to negative an intention of taking the notes as cash.

Complainant was a non-resident; and an order was obtained by the defendants requiring security for costs and that all proceedings on his part in the meantime be stayed. This did not stay the defendants, and' they put in their answer, and placed the cause upon the calendar on bill and answer, refusing to receive a replication.

Mrs. Cromwell died, leaving personal property only, amounting to about ten thousand dollars. She had made her will, bearing date the fourteenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and thirty. Her death happened in the month of February one thousand eight hundred and thirty-three.

Bill brought to obtain the liquidation and payment of cer-, tain claims made by the complainant, for services rendered and monies disbursed by him chiefly as solicitor, attorney and counsel for and in behalf of a trust estate under marriage articles made between the defendants, Joshua Dyett and Jessy Ann his wife. The bill had been taken pro confesso ; and an order was entered referring the matter to a master to take and state an account.

Alpheus Sherman, as public administrator, had been made a defendant. He was afterwards removed; and a petition, on the part of the complainant, was now presented, to substitute the name of Eber Wheaton, the present public administrator, in the place of Alpheus Sherman, as a defendant

Exceptions to an answer for impertinence. The bill had been filed by the complainants as judgment creditors after an execution at law was returned unsatisfied. The following matter was excepted to as impertinent. (First exception.) “ But this defendant denies that the amount of said judgment is equitably due to said complainants, as in said bill is alleged; and says that the said suit was commenced, and the said judgment was obtained by the said Robert Me.

Bill to have a promissory note, given as part of the purchase money for an estate, declared an equitable lien upon the property. Stephen Shirley, in the month of September, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, sold a house and lot, known as No. 140 Duane Street in the city of New York, to the defendants the Congress Steam Sugar Refining Company.

Bill for specific contract of a sale of lands ; and plea of the statute of frauds interposed. No answer accompanied the plea. The bill showed a sale of certain lots in the city of New-York: and among them, some struck off to, the defendant Daniel Le Roy, who, with his associates, had directed the same to be sold.

The bill was filed against John Boyd and John Snifien. Mr. Mulock appeared for the defendant John Snifien alone ; and a copy of the bill was served upon him requiring the defendant Snifien to answer. Soon after, Mr. Mu-lock appeared for the defendant John Boyd.

<p>Application to strike the bill off the files of the court. It had been filed without signature of counsel. The solicitor of the defendant had gone to the clerk’s office, for the purpose of perusing it, and found it to be thus without the signature of counsel. He gave notice of appearance, and demanded a copy of the bill under the statute. In the meantime the solicitor for the complainant had found out what the bill required and got counsel to sign it in the clerk’s office.</p>

<p>•3. P., by will, devised the residue of rents and profits of real and personal estate to his children O. B., J. I. P., JD. D., W. P. and P. R. P. to be equally divided between them their legal heirs; and in case any of his said children died without issue, bis or her share should revert to the remaining children ; but in case of one dying and leaving issue, then the part which such ch'ld would have been entitled to should make a share for his or her child. There was a power to his executors to sell all the real estate, add all the personalty to it and divide the same into five paits, and dispose of one fifth to the said C. B. or her legal heirs, one fifth to the said J. I. P. or his legal heirs, one fifth to the said P. R. P. or his legal heirs, one fifth part at interest, such interest to be paid to the said D. D. and in the event of her death before her husband, to appropriate the interest to the benefit of her children as they came of age; ami if she survived him, then she was to be put into the full possession of the one fifth. And the remaining one fifth was to be placed at interest for W. P. (another child;) and in case of his death leaving no issue, then this fifth was to he divided between the testator’s surviving children and his legal heirs, but should he reform in his habits, then he was to have the entire possession of this fifth part. The will directed the executors to sell a house in Broad Street and out of the proceeds to pay a legacy; and the residue of the purchase money was to be divided into six equal parts, one was to be given to Ills wife and the remaining five sixths were to be distributed among his children and their legal heirs in the same manner as had been before directed with regard to the real and personal estate after the death of his wife. The widow survived all the children, except. W. P., and then died. W. P. was living, but had never any children. C. R., D. D., J. I. P. and P. R. P. were all dead leaving children. Prior to the deaths of P. R. P. and J. I. P., they hail respectively assigned their rights in the testator’s estate by way of mortgage, without their widows having joined: Held, that tile children took an estate for life in the property, and that the remainder in fee went to the children of the devise.es, i. e. all the children of the devisees, and not merely those bom at the time of making the will or at the death of the testator. That the lands passed by a devise of the rents and profits; and were vested in the devisees, subject to the power of sale in the trustees; and when this was executed, the proceeds belonged to the devisees for life in remainder in like maimer as the land. That the proceeds of the Broadway House, after setting apart a sixth for the widow, stood upon the same footing. That a< J. I. P. and P. It. P. had only a life estate, their widows had no dower; and the mortgages only operated upon their shares of the rents and profits. That W. P.’s share was lo be put out during his life and afterwards divided among t his brothers and sisters children per stirpes. Shar»s of infants to be paid to geneial guardians, and where there were no general guardians, to be paid into court. The shares of femes covert (if of age) to be paid over on joint receipts of themselves and husbands.</p>

The complainant, Thomas S. Hamblin, was the lessee and manager of the Bowery Theatre in the city of New York.

The principal object of the bill in this cause was to reach a supposed interest of the defendants Charles Hay and Elizabeth his wife in certain leasehold premises standing in the names of the defendant William Scott and one William Legget (not a party); and to have it applied in payment of a judgment which the complainants had recovered against the defendant, Charles Hay, for a debt or demand contracted with them by his wife.

<p>Bill of foreclosure, under the following circumstances : jn month 0f February, one thousand eight hundred and twenty, the complainants advanced to Ebenezer Turret Grant three thousand two hundred dollars ; and took from him a bond and mortgage of land in the city of New-York, alleged to belong to him in fee simple. The loan was negotiated through Messrs. Shotwell and Son, who, as the bill alleged, were the brokers of the borrower, whereas the defendants insisted that they acted for the company. It ultimately turned out that the mortgagor, Edward Turrell Grant, was under age at the time he executed the bond and mortgage. While the securities were outstanding, he died; having first made his will, which commenced with a direction as to his debts, as follows : “ Imprimis, I order and direct all my just debts and funeral expenses to be first paid and satisfiedand the property which he had mortgaged was given to his mother, in the words following : “ Also, I give and devise to the said Elizabeth Grant and to her heirs and assigns for ever my two houses and lots of land known by Nos. 205 and 207, in William Street in the city of New-York, with the appurtenances.” He appointed the defendants Elizabeth Grant and Richard Grant his executrix and executor.</p> <p>The defendants, in their answer, set up the infancy of the mortgagor at the time of giving the bond and mortgage, and alleged usury in the granting of the loan.</p>

Bill for a specific performance, O. E. mortgaged property at Buffalo to the Farmers Fire Insurance and Loan Company.

A judgment creditor’s bill, filed after an execution had been returned unsatisfied. object of it was to reach the share and interest of the debtor in the estate left by his father, John Hone, deceased ? and to have' it applied, as far as might be necessary, to the payment and satisfaction of the complainant’s judgment.

Bill for a specific performance of the sale of lots of ground. Egerton Leigh Winthrop was seized of the property; and while he was ill, his brother, as his agent, signed an agreement for the sale of the lots to the complainant, Marquis D. L. Gaines. Prior to this time, Egerton Leigh Winthrop had made his will. He afterwards died. The question was, as to where the complainant was to look for title ?

<p>Although a judgment is obtained through a bond and warrant of attorney yet a complainant, wishing to restrain proceedings under it, must make a deposit or give security under the statute relating to injunctions to stay proceedings in personal actions.</p>

<p>Question : whether judgments could be set-off, so as to destroy the attorney’s lien for his costs ?</p> <p>In the month of February one thousand eight hundred and twenty-11™6’ a judgment had been obtained by the complainants, executors of Nicoll, against Richard F. Nicoll, the defendant herein, for sixteen thousand nine hundred and sixty-five dollars and ninety-five cents damages and costs ; and which judgment formed part of the estate of their testator and belonged to his residuary legatees and devisees Ann W. Nicoll, Glorianna M. Nicoll and Arabella J. F* Nicoll.</p> <p>In May Term one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine Richard F. Nicoll obtained a judgment in ejectment against the said devisees; and the costs were taxed at one hundred and sixty-six dollars and eighty-nine cents. Richard F, Nicoll had become insolvent and had never paid his attorney those costs.</p> <p>Bill now filed to restrain the collecting of costs upon the judgment in ejectment; and to compel a set-off, as far as they would extend, against the first mentioned judgment.</p> <p>An injunction had been granted by the injunction.master ; and a motion was now made, upon bill and answer, to dissolve it.</p>

Bill by Elizabeth Van Gelder, for her dower, as the widow of Abraham Van Gelder, out of one fourth part of lots and buildings situated in William Street in the city of New York. The points in the case were, upon the sufficiency of the evidence of marriage and the effect of a partition.

The complainants had filed a judgment-creditors bill against their debtor John Boyd ; and made John Sniffen a party, charging the latter with holding real estate belonging to the former and adding allegations going to impeach Snifffen’s title. The defendant Sniffen, by an answer, set up his being a bona -fide purchaser, without notice : but he didrnot answer as to any thing in the bill which went to impeach his title. Forty-eight exceptions were taken to the answer.

Appearances had been entered; copies of bills served an(j orders to answer entered; then, amendments, prior to answers coming in, were made, and copies served : but no new order to answer was entered and the bill was taken as confessed upon the original orders to answer.

<p>In the month of January one thousand eight hundred and thirty-four, the defendant, John Cozine, brought an action of ejectment against Joseph Burtis, a tenant of the complaioant, Alexander L. Botts, to recover certain premises in Queens County; issue was joined, but a verdict by default was had ; judgment docketted for Cozine ; and possession given under a writ of possession.</p> <p>The present complainant, Alexander L. Botts, filed his bill in this cause against the defendant, John Cozine, in the month of June last. He claimed therein a right to the lands embraced by the ejectment; set forth the circumstances connected with the action and suggested surprise ; averred that he could not have adequate relief by a new trial or otherwise at law; and prayed that the defendant should release the premises and also be restrained from taking further measures upon his verdict.</p> <p>A motion was now made, to require the complainant to elect whether he would proceed at law in the action of ejectment and now pending or in the suit in this court.</p>

<p>In divorce, cases, it must always clearly appear tlmt service of subpoena has been made within the jurisdiction.</p>

William B. Windle had purchased lots of land in the city of New-York while he was an alien; but, by the advice of counsel, the property was conveyed to his wife. She after-wards died and left infant children. now presented a petition from William B. Windle, setting forth the circumstances in detail, as follows: In Chancery, before ) the Vice-Chancellor. ) To the Chancellor of the State of New-York. The Petition of William B. Windle, of the city of !

The bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage given by the defendant Jesse West to John Edwards, deceased. West objected to payment, on the ground of the defendant Bridget Edwards, the widow of the said John Edwards, having an estate of dower in the mortgaged premises ; and that his title to the property for which he had Edwards’s warrantee deed, was thereby impaired.

A petition had been presented on behalf of the. administrator of Thomas Everit, junior, setting forth that the latter made contracts for the sale of lands at Brooklyn, received deposit monies, and died without leaving a will or performing these contracts. His widow and infant children survived him. Performance was prayed pursuant to the statute ; 2 R. S. 194, § 169.

The complainant’s counsel applied for leave to file a replication, notwithstanding the cause had been noticed upon bill and answer by the defendant. It' appeared, as an excuse for not filing it before, that the solicitor for the complainant had been unwell.

Bill for a specific performance. The cause had been heard and a decree passed for specific performance and that the complainant (the vendee) pay the balance of the consideration money. The defendant was ordered to pay the - , • costs oí the suit. A reference was had to ascertain the amount of balance of the purchase money unpaid; and the master had reported it at eighty-two dollars and fourteen cents.

The bill showed that the complainant, Richard H. Farmer, late of the island of Antigua-, being on a visit with his family at Philadelphia, was unexpectedly arrested at the suit of the defendant, Jacob D. Walter and others, executors of John J. Walter deceased, and at the immediate instigation of the said Jacob D. Walter formerly of Antigua but at New York at the time the bill was filed and in Philadelphia when the arrest took place.

Bill of discovery, in aid of an action at law; and to which demurrers were taken to distinct parts, but covering the whole of the discovery sought. The object of the discovery (in aid of the action) was to countervail the defence, of which the defendant had given notice, with his plea, he meant to set up and prove on the trial in bar. The action had been brought by the complainant, as endorsee of three several bills of exchange, against the defendant as acceptor.

Bill for an injunction to restrain the trustees of St. Peter’s Church in the city of New York and others “ from pulling down or prostrating the building called St. Peter’s Church in Barclay Street in the city of New York or any part thereof; and from committing any further waste or destruction of the same and to desist and refrain from all proceedings to build a new church on the said premises.” The main part of the church was erected between the years one thousand seven…

Bill of foreclosure, upon a mortgage made by the defendants Orlando C. Osborne and Margaret Anne his wife of ground at Bloomingdale in the twelfth ward of the city of New-York. A decree for sale was had; and, under it, Master Buggies sold the property to Elias L. Philip for the gum 0f n;ne thousand dollars. •PJ'‘or t0 ^e master’s executing any deed to the purchaser, a petition wa,s presented to the court.

<p>Judgment-creditor’s bill. An order had been granted for the appointment of a receiver and that the defendant be examined as to his property; but no copy of it had been served either upon the defendant or his solicitor. For the purpose of appointing such receiver, the complainant took out a master’s summons, having the following underwriting: “ To appoint a receiver in this cause of all the real and personal, the legal and equitable estate and property, things in possession and choses in action of the defendant, Mortimer M. Jackson, with the usual powers.” The defendant, under advice of counsel, did not attend before the master; and a motion was made that the party be attached.</p>

A receiver had been appointed. After the final decree in the cause, a reference was had to a master for the purpose of settling the receiver’s accounts, who had received monies and paid them, from time to time, into court. When the receiver was thus before the master, one of the parties objected to the allowance claimed by the receiver for his .services, as well as to items in his accounts. The master, however, allowed the claim and passed the accounts as presented.

The complainants had waived an oath to the answer of the defendant. The latter, however, had sworn to.it; and now applied to dissolve the injunction. 10 J At the same time, the complainants moved that an affidavit, made by one J. M. C., might be annexed to and filed with the bill and have the same effect as if it had béen oríginally filed and annexed thereto.

In the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight, the petitioners obtained a loan from the Globe Insurance Company of four thousand five hundred dollars, for the purpose of erecting a building upon a lot of ground belonging to them and known as No. 110 Pearl Street in the city of New York; and for securing the repayment, with interest, they executed to the said company their bond and a mortgage of the premises.

Judgment-creditor’s bill. The defendant, by his answer,. showed that in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, he received from his wife’s father, in her right, three thousand nine hundred and forty-five dollars; and placed the same to her credit upon his books, with the understanding that it was to be her separate property and all. furniture purchased with it was to be carried to the account -of this fund as her sole property.

Judgment-creditor’s bill; and answer, denying property: but setting forth that, while the complainant’s injunction was in force, the defendant’s furniture had been sold under a distress for rent.

The complainants had filed their bill to foreclose the equity of redemption in two mortgages, given to them by the defendant, Ferris Pell, on several parcels of property and for a sale of the same. The amount of principal and interest reported due was thirty-two thousand two hundred and seven dollars and seventy-six cents.

Elizabeth Inman, of the town of Boston, by her will bearing date the fourteenth day of May in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five, after various bequests therein contained, bequeathed as follows : “ My will is that Mrs. Anne Powell, wife of William Hummer Powell, be paid and receive from my estate hereafter described the lawful interest of two thousand pounds sterling, which interest is to be paid to her annually for and during her natural life and for her…

<p>If adverse claims arise as to the deposit money received by an auctioneer—one party insisting upon its return and the other on its being paid over—the auctioneer may file a bill of interpleader.</p> <p>Bills of interpleader are not to be encouraged, where there is any other mode of adjusting conflicting claims with perfect safetyto the stakeholder. Still, a party holding a fund in which he has no interest and to which adverse claims are set up, is not bound to stand an action at law under a promise or offer of indemnity. Nor is he obliged to exercise any judgment on the subject of the right between the parties when .one threatens or commences a suit and the other forbids payment.</p> <p>In order to work a forfeiture of a deposit on an auction sale, there must have been an express stipulation to that effect.</p>

The bill, which was filed on the twentieth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, originally went against William Pike and Joshua C. Skidmore. It had been dismissed, as to Pike, by consent; and Pike died two days after the same was filed.

The facts in this case, as they appeared by the pleadings, were briefly these. The complainant and Catharine A. Newbold, since deceased, as guardians of infants, were stockholders of the Globe Insurance Company. These persons possessed one hundred and ten shares of its capital stock, the par value of each share being fifty dollars.