Volume 3 — Johnson's New York Chancery Reports

PETITION, stating the substance of the pleadings and decretal orders and sales, ánd other proceedings in this cause, and that the cause now stands on exceptions to the master’s report, and that the defendant threatens -to prosecute this cause further by appeal, and that all the plaintiffs stand in need of pecuniary aid, to enable them to carry on this expensive litigation, and that the infants, who are plaintiffs., are in want of monies for their necessary maintenance and…

THE bill was filed by the plaintiff against Gompert S. Gomperts, Israel JB.

THE bill, which was filed on the 28th of November, 1815, stated, that the late Robert Fulton, deceased, (whose executors, Harriet Dale and William Cutting, were made defendants,) in his life-time, about the 11th of February, 1809, and the 9th of February, 1811, obtained certain patents, for applying the power of steam to the purposes of navigation, in which patents the late Robert R. Livingston was equally interested, by virtue of an agreement, entered, into between them, in…

PETITION of Neliemiah Allen, the committee of the lunatic, praying for an allowance for compensation, and accompanied with a master’s report, stating the account of the committee, and that he had received 1,906 dollars, and paid out 1,158 dollars, in small sums, and that five per cent, on the whole sum paid out and received, would be a reasonable allowance.

PETITION of the plaintiffs, stating that they were prosecuted at law in the supreme court by the defendants. That the cause ivas put at issue on the 17th of June last. That the cause is noticed for trial at the circuit court, to be holden at Albany on the 7th inst. That the plaintiffs filed their bill for a discovery of matters therein specified, on the 29th of July last. That the defendants entered their appearance on the 30th of July.

THE bill charged that Jacob Watson, by will, appointed • John Murray one of his executors, and who alone acted. That he left a large real and personal estate, and gave the executors powers and directions relative to the distribution of the estate. That the executor confounded the estate with his own, and made no dividends or distribution.

THE bill stated that the plaintiff, Eliza A. the infant, was the daughter of Peter A. and under 13 years of age. That in August last, the infant, with her mother, went from the city of New-York to Staten Island, and boarded with Mrs, Roff. That the infant there became acquainted with the defendant son of Mrs. Roff, who was about 33 or 34 years of age. That on the 37th of September last, the defendant proposed to the infant to go to a minister and be married.

IN 1772, Henry Livingston, of the island of Jamaica, devised an esiate in that island to his four nephews, Philip L., P. P. L., Walter L., and the defendant, in fee, as tenants in common. The testator died in February, 1772, having appointed the four devisees his executors. P P. L. proved the will, and managed the estate for the proprietors, until his death, in 1789, having, however, previously disposed of his share of the estate to Robert C. Livingston, in fee.

ON the 20th of August, 1800, Daniel R Durning executed a bond and mortgage in fee, to Evert Bancker, for securing,the payment of 2,500 dollars, in one year. In.1801, all the right, title and interest of Burning in the mortgaged premises, were sold by the sheriff, undér a farf facias, issued on a judgment against B. at the suit of Joseph Winter, for 7,661 dollars and 37 cents, to Philip Brasher, who was the highest bidder, for 4,933 dollars and 17 cents.

THE bill stated, that J. W. Green, in 1807, contracted to purchase a house and lot in New-York, and wanting five hundred dollars for the purpose, applied to the plaintiff for his assistance to raise the money, representing to him that he would mortgage the premises, as security, for any advances that the plaintiff might be obliged to make.

<p>Where one of several defendants dies, the plaintiff cannot file a neto original bill against the representatives of the deceased party and the others, but a bill of revivor only against such representatives.</p> <p>Even if he might elect to file a new bill, he cannot do so where an answer has' been put in by the party, since deceased.</p>

<p>Where on a bill to foreclose a mortgage, a subsequent mortgage^, or judgment creditor, who is made a party defendant, answers and disclaims, he is entitled to costs against the plaintiff, tohepaidontof the fund, if that is sufficient, and if not, to he paidby the plaintiff; he not having applied to such defendant, before suit brought, to release, or otherwise disclaim.</p>

THE defendants’ solicitor entered a rule with the clerk on the 22d of March, 1817, giving three weeks to the plaintiff to produce witnesses; and on the 12th oí April, 1817, he entered another rule, for the plaintiff to show cause why publication should not pass in three weeks.

THE plaintiff sued informa pauperis, and recovered a legacy of 200 dollars, with interest. The executors had refused to pay the plaintiff, because the will directed the money to be put out at the discretion of the executors, and they apprehended that the plaintiff- who was born a slave, and emancipated by -the will, would waste the money, The question was, whether the plaintiff was entitled to costs.

AN appeal to the court for the trial of impeachments and the correction of errors, from the decree lately pro* nounced in this case, (a) having been filed.

THE bill was filed in October, 1810, by the plaintiff, a mortgagee, to compel the mortgagors to come to an account, and pay the plaintiff the amount due on the mortgage, and redeem the same, or be foreclosed of all equity of redemption.

BILL to set aside a sale of mortgaged premises, unde? a power contained in the morgtage. The cause was submitted on the bill and answer,

THE petition of the defendant, Tremain, stated, that he was payee of a note of the plaintiff’s to him, for 2,212 dollars, and endorsed it to the other two defendants, who thereupon arrested the plaintiff, at law, but did not hold him to bail, owing to the representations of the petitioner ofhis solvency, &c. That the plaintiff filed his bill against all the defendants, for an injunction to stay the suit at law, on the ground that he had never given such note, and the…

THIS cause was brought to a bearing, on the pleadings and proofs, in June, 1815, (Vide S. C., wol. 1. p. 5. and p. 450.) The decree of the court, the 27th of June, 1815, settled the principles on which an account was to be taken between the parties, and an order of reference was, thereupon, made to a master, to take and state the account according to the directions there given.

THE petition of the plaintiffs stated, that this suit had long been pending, and that on the 39th of September, 1815, the court decreed, (vol. 1. p. 550.) that the accounts between the plaintiff and the bankrupt, on the one part, and the defendant, on the other, should be opened from the 39th of November, 1790, and that it should be referred to a master to state the said accounts, according to certain principles and directions in the decree mentioned.

PETITION of the defendant, Hubbs, for leave to file a bill of review.

BILL filed October 11th, 1815, for the redemption of a mortgage. Philip Minthorn, in March, 1756, died seised of a tract of land in the out-ward of the city of New-York, leaving a widow and nine children. By his will, he devised all his estate to his widow, for life, and after her de cfiase, to' his children in fee.

THE bill, filed in January, 1803, stated that Philip-Philip Livingston, father of the plaintiff, being seized of Teal and personal estate, in the island of Jamaica, and in.' this state, in April, 1784, made his will, by which, after giving his wife, in lieu of dower, 1000 pounds, his plate, furniture, &c. and an annuity, or rent charge of 600 pounds sterling, payable out of all his estate in Jamaica, and elsewhere, during her fife, in half-yearly instalments, bequeathed to…

THE petition of the plaintiff stated the decree in, this cause, (vide vol. 2. p. 565.) of the 30th of September last, by which the defendant was decreed to pay to the plaintiffs 81,836 dollars, 37 cents, with interest and costs.

BILL, filed 12th oí July, 1811, stating, that in June 1807, the defendant, being owner of the ship Egeria, and having loaded her for a trading voyage from New-York to Madeira, from thence to the Cape of Good Hope, thence to Madras, thence to Calcutta, and from thence back to New-York, he hired the plaintiff’s testator, to go as supercargo on the voyage, and by. his letter of instruct lions, dated the 27th of June, 1807, he instructed the testator, that the voyage was…

THIS was an amicable suit, brought for the purpose of obtaining the sanction of this court to a compromise of the controversy between the parties, some of whom were infants, and, therefore, not legally bound by their voluntary assent to the settlement proposed. The bill, which was filed September S, 1817, stated, that on the 24th of January, 1787, Claude J. F—then of the city of Paris, contracted marriage with Madelame S'-, of íhe same.place, and were then and there married.

PETITION of the defendants, stating that the plaintiff in behalf of himself, and such other creditors of the defendant, James Kane, as should come in and contribute to the expense of the suit, on the 27th of .August last, filed his bill against the defendants, for relief, &c. That an injunction was, on the same day, issued, enjoining the defendants, (except J. K.) not to proceed to execution on a judgment mentioned in the said bill, against the estate of the said J. K., nor…

IN the beginning of the year 1791, Sir William Pulteney, for himself, and for Wm. Hornby, and Patrick Colquhoun, purchased of Robert Morris, of Philadelphia, a large tract of land in this state, called, in the case made by consent of parties, the “ Genesee Tract,” in which Sir William was interested in three-fourths; but as he and the other purchasers were aliens, a conveyance was not made to them .

THE amended bill, filed the I6th of August, 1814, stated, among other things, that Abraham Skinner, on the 8th of May, 1783, executed a mortgage of a farm, of which he was then seized, in Amenia, in Dutchess county, to Joel Harvey, jun. to secure the payment of certain bonds.

BILL filed,- December 5th, 1816. It stated that the plaintiff being seized as tenant in common, with the defendant, of about six acres and a half of land, and two certain falls of water and mill seats,‘including the ground requisite for the erection and convenience of mills, together with a grist mill erected on the easternmost, or lower mill-seat, on the north side of the Coxsackie Creek, and the privilege of erecting mills, raceways and dams,- on and across the' said…

PETITION of the defendants, the executors and infant heirs of Robert Fulton, deceased, to set aside the sale of mortgaged premises, on the ground of surprise; and that they be allowed to redeem the premises, on paying the debt ánd costs within a reasonble time, or that the bid-dings may be opened, &e. The material facts set forth in the petition, and the affidavits read in support of it, are stated in the opinion of the court.

MOTION to enlarge the publication; 1. Because no order to pass publication had been entered; 2. On affidavits, that á material witness resided at Detroit, and that the defendants had not taken out a commission in season, for the reasons detailed in the affidavits. The motion was opposed on the ground, 1.

THE report of the commissioners assigned and empowered to make partition of the real estate, in the pleadings mentioned in this case, was read, filed, and confirmed. By the repmt, and the maps accompanying it, it appeared that the commissioners had made partition, and allotted and set' apart, to each of the parties by metes and bounds.

The material facts charged in the bill, or to which the defendant was interrogated, and his answer to which was excepted to, as evasive and unsatisfactory, are sufficiently stated by the court.

BILL for the partition of land. The .plaintiff stated, that being seised in fee of an equal and undivided moiety of lot No. 2, in the- second allotment of the Oriskany patent, containing 740 acres, he, on the 12th of September, 1803, took possession of the Westerly half part of the premises, the easterly half being in possession of some or all of the defendants. That he has since continued in possession of the westerly part, and made great improvements thereon.

<p>A testator must have a legal or equitable title in the land devised, at the time, otherwise nothing pasess by the devise. A subsequently acquired title will not pass by it.</p> <p>Where a devise fails for want of title in the devisor, the devisee will not he relieved out of other parts of the estate, though the devisor had a judgment which was a lien on the land.</p>

THE bill, the 26th of November, 1812, stated, that letters patent were granted the 8th of July, 1790, to John Earnest Pier, for lot No. 6, in the township of Mar« cellus. In 1791, Pier sold the lot to Peter Schuyler, for thirty pounds, and by writing under his hand and seal, sold and conveyed, or covenanted to sell or convey, the said lot, for the consideration aforesaid, to P. S: in fee, and delivered the deed to him.

> BILL to foreclose a mortgage given to secure the payment of a bond. The bill was taken pro confesso, and the Master reported the amount of the bond debt, with the interest due, and unpaid.

BILL, filed 22d of September, 1815, stating that the plaintiff, • William Denning, on 'the '6th of February, 1812, obtained a judgment in the S. C. against Henry Pers'en, on a bond conditioned for 777 dollars and 79 cetits. That II.

PETITION of John Van Vechten, the committee, stating, that the lunatic is seised of a wood lot in Catskill. That proposals have been made to the committee to purchase the wood standing on the west corner of the lot, and which corner contains about five acres. That the offer is 25 dollars per acre for the wood, which, in the opinion of the committee, is very favourable to the interest of the lunatic. That the land is on the side of a hill, and of no value, except for the wood.

BILL stating that the plaintiff sues as well on behalf of himself, as of the other creditors of Isaac Moses deceased, who shall come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit; and that Isaac Moses, together with Moses L. Moses and David Moses, two of his sons, traded under the firm of Isaac Moses Sons, and became indebted to the plaintiff and others, in divers sums of money; to the plaintiff in 4,650 dollars, by a promissory note to him, and payable on the 15th of April,…

THE bill, filed Jlugust 27th, 1817, stated, in substance, that the plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement under seal, dated the 20th of July, 1809, which was set forth in this bill, and which related to the plaintiff’s furnishing timber, &c. which the defendant was to take to Montreal or Quebec, &c. and to pay the plaintiff half the proceeds, &c. and furnish him with an account thereof, &c. The bill then detailed, at length, the transactions and conduct of the…

<p>THIS cause was set down for hearing, in September last, by the plaintiff, on bill and answer, but he did not bring it on. The defendant, accordingly, in May last, entered an order, and gave notice that he be at liberty to bring the cause to a hearing, at this time ; upon receiving the notice, the plaintiff filed a replication, and put the cause at issue.</p>

PETITION by the defendants for a rehearing, conceiving-themselves aggrieved by the decretal'order of the 30 th of September last; 1. Because a general account was not decreed, but only specifically ; (setting forth the specific directions contained in the decretal order, which x ' was very particular as to the mode of takings the account.) 2.

BILL to foreclose a mortgage executed by Isaac Dennis, deceased. The defendants (except one) are the heirs at law of the mortgagor, and two of them* represented as infants. The bill was duly taken pro confesso, against all the defendants, except the two infants, who appeared and answered by their guardian, the clerk of the court. who was appointed their guardian, for this purpose, by an order of the court.

<p>A person who has fraudulently acquired title to land, and fraudulently conveyed, it, though by a mere quit-claim deed without covenants, is not a competent witness for his grantee, in a suit brought against him by a person claiming it, as a bona fide purchaser.</p> <p>A deposition taken in an ejectment, suit at law, brought by the defendants against a third person, as tenatit, to recover the land, the subject of the suit here, is not admissible in evidence against the plaintiffs ; it being res inter alios acta.</p> <p>Under the third section of the act to prevent frauds, (10. sess. c. 44—27 Elis. ch. 4) which was intended to protect bona fide purchasers, a purchaser, for valuable consideration, without notice, from a fraudulent or voluntary grantee. will "be preferred to a subsequent purchaser, for a valuable consideration, without notice. Th a first purchaser has the preference, whether he takes his conveyance frem the grantor or grantee.</p> <p>Under the first section of the statute, (sess. 10. c. 44.—13. Eliz. c. 5.) which was made to protect creditors, a fraudulent conveyance by a debtor, is utterly void, as to creditors, unless made for a valuable consideration to a bona jida purchaser, without notice of the fraudulent intent, But a bonajide purchaser from a fraudulent grantee, acquires no title, by the conveyance, against the creditors of the fraudulent grantor.</p> <p>A person who acquired uieniiy*conycy^ui^flaim cpyenantlfbdís ^tncss^fmhis him by a person bona fide purchaser</p> <p>A deposition jectment suit at the’ defendants third person^ as verUteland,The" sui?here °is not admissible cvidence against the plaintiff, be-lag res inter all' os acta.</p> <p>Under 27 Elis, for aP'valuable Py mfrauduknt or|5eferredWfoba for Urá valuable considnotice from the ori”maIgrantor'</p> <p>ünder the third section of the statute for the preventon of frauds, (sess. EÍiz°c tfj the first purchaser for a valuable consideration, the conveyance tormor ^grantee, win be sectíon^rf ^t’he (sess16 °iomck 44—13 Eliz. c. 5.) a fraudulent conyeyance by tertyvoid^’as to inga^homz fide vSu^iicoMidt without notice of*!1®</p> <p>But a bona fide attrfraudeuientm l^titkby&e conveyance =agamstthe creaitors oi the duient grantor.</p>

<p>A .testator, by his will, dated September 25th, 1810, gave to his daughter, during her separation from W. O., her husband, one thousand dollars a year, which he charged on his real estate. TV C. and his wife were living separate when the will was made, but cohabited together in February, ?1815, when the testator made a codicil to his will, (changing only the executors,) and also, at his death, but separated immediately after his decease, and continu. ed to live separate until within a short time previous to íilingthe billby TV. C. and his wife against the executors, for the legacy. Held, that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the legacy 5 and the bill was ordered to be dismiss* ed with costs.</p>

PHINE&S MILLER, of Georgia, made his will, the 11th of December, 1797, appointing Decius Wadsworth, Samuel Kellock, and his wife, Catharine Miller, his executors, and died the 7th of December, 1803.. The two executors first named declined to act, and the • executrix administered, but did not take out any letters testamentary in this state.

THE bill stated that the plaintiff, having become embarrassed and pressed for money to pay certain debts, made a note, dated March 12, 1807, in favour of John Ward, (a broker) for 500 dollars, payable in sixty days; and on the 19th of March, he made another note to J. W. for the like sum, payable in 60 days, for which he received of J. W. 1,000 dollars, but was obliged to allow him interest thereon, at the rate of two per cent, per month.

<p>IN 1813, Eastburn, Kirk and Downes, entered into partnership as booksellers, and employed the defendant, Hodgson as a clerk, and as their bookkeeper and cashier, at a salary of 500 dollars for the first year, and 600 dollars for every subsequent year; and he continued in that employment until the filing of the original bill against him, on the 10th of April, 1816, and which stated, that, on the 2d of April, 1816, the plaintiff K., having examined the books of account, with a view to ascertain the state of the accounts, discovered a large deficiency. That the defendant, on application, made a statement, in which he set forth, 3,917 dollars and 84 cents, which he had loaned to himself, and secretly appropriated to his own use, and had not entered the same in the books, &c. The bill also stated, that H. was about to leave the state, and prayed for a discovery, and an account, and for a writ of ne exeat On filing this bill, in the name of E., K. and D., and which was sworn to by K., the defendant, H., was held to bail in the sum of2,600 dollars.</p> <p>Eastburn, who acted for himself, and Downes, who was absent, refusing to permit their names to be used as plaintiffs against II; K, on the 4th of May, 1816, filed a supplemental and amended bill against II., E. and D., in xvhich he charged, that the greater part of the sum taken by H. was with the privity and connivance of the defendant E., and to deceive the plaintiff; and that II. was induced not to make the entry of the said sum, for the purpose of deceiving the plaintiff as to the state of the partnership funds. That E., claiming to act for himself and D., continues still to employ II. as a clerk of the firm, Src.</p> <p>Prayer for a discovery, and that the defendant, E., may be directed to discharge the defendant II, from the employment of the firm, and that a receiver of the property and moneys of the firm may be appointed, and that the defendants may come to an account with the plaintiff, &c.</p> <p>The ansxver of Eastburn admitted the employment of K, as clerk, at a salary of 500 dollars for the first, and 600 dollars for the next year, with an understanding. however, that his salary should be increased with the in» crease of business, and of his services. That the deficit in the cash account was discovered in March, 1816; but II. being absent, did not learn, until April Si, 1816, that the deficit was wholly occasioned by the overdrawing of if., who then exhibited a statement, by which it appeared, that he had taken, and not charged in the ledger, 3,917 dollars and 84 cents, and had taken and charged 653 dollars and 18 cents—making 4,571 dollars and 2 cents; and had charged his salary for three years at 1,700 dollars, and 400 dollars for the board of E., K. and B.</p> <p>The defendant E. denied all knowledge, of the moneys but what he derived from the account exhibited by It., and the schedule annexed: He denied all' collusion with H., and any knowledge, or even suspicion of the overdrawing by H., until informed as aforesaid; and he averred, that no patt of the money, so taken by II., was ever applied to the use of the defendant E. That, after the discovery of the fact of its being So taken, he continued H. in the service of the firm, but took the management of the Cash concerns in his own hands. That he believed that the morals ’of H. were not depraved, but that he was led to overdraw from negligence in his private concerns, coupled With the expectation of an increased allowance for his services, rather than from any intention to deceive. That the defendant, D., was then in Europe, and had left the defendant, E., a full power of attorney, dated 29th November, 1815, to act in his name, and for him.</p> <p>The defendant, Downes, also put in his answer, on the 1st of June, 1817, which agreed with that of E.</p> <p>The defendant, H. in his answer admitted the overdrawing by him, but denied that it was done secretly, Or with any fraudulent views, but tinder circumstances he deemed excusable. That he was assured by E. that; after his second year, his salary should be enlarged, as the business extended, and his duties increased; that the business increased and his services were very great, and that he continued to perform his services from a conviction that he should receive an increased compensation; that he had no idea that he had overdrawn to so large an amount, until _ in March, 1816, when he discovered it to his astonishment, .. but believed that the firm would allow him an increase of salary equal to the deficit. That his salary ought to have exceeded 1,000 dollars per annum, and, also, a compensation for extra services.</p> <p>Several witnesses were examined in the cause, which was brought to a hearing the 15th of June.</p>

THIS was a bill by the plaintiff, as widow of Robert Sharp, deceased, against the defendants, as executors of Robert Sharp, with whom the defendant John Sharp, was in copartnership at the time of the death of Robert Sharp. The bill was for a discovery and account of the co-partnership estate and effects, in which the plaintiff was stated to be interested under the will of her late husband.

PETITION of the heirs and devisees of John P. Quackenboss, deceased, stating, that Isaac Hanson, in his lifetime, and at the time of his death, held certain lots of land, and also certain choses in action, in the petition mentioned, in trust for them, and under an express trust created by deed, and that he died, leaving two infant children. Prayer, that those infant trustees might be directed to convey the land, and assign the securities to the petitioners, &c.

RIGGS, for plaintiffs, on petition founded on affidavit, moved for leave to amend his bill, after answer and exceptions to the answer submitted to be answered, by adding new charges and new parties.

GARR, ■ for the plaintiff moved for a writ of ne exeat and injunction. The bill stated that on the 1st of September, 1815, the plaintiff and Alexander Cranston of New-York, Andrew Alexander of Belfast, in Ireland, and the defendant S. of Lexington, in Kentucky, entered into partnership for the purpose of transacting mercantile business in Kentucky. That the plaintiff was to receive one third of the real profits.

<p>A decree entered by default, and enrolled, was set aside, on motion, on pay, " ment of costs, tie plaintiff having been previously served with notice of the motion, and copies' of the affidavits, on which it was intended to be made.</p>

THE bill stated, that in April, 1812, the plaintiffs and defendant, by purchase at a sheriff’s sale, were tenants in common of a moiety of a grist mill, saw mill, and carding machine, and about 40 acres of leasehold estate adjoining thereto, in lot 98, in Manlius, and the proportions of interest of each were stated in the bill, those of the plaintiffs amounting together to 2,128 dollars, and 48 cents, and that of the defendant to 1,203 dollars, and 50 cents.

PETITION of plaintiff,' stating the gravamen intended to be set forth in the original bill. That -Upon the hearing the Chancellor denied relief to the plaintiff upon the bill as ¡framed; but granted; a. rehearing. That the mistake in the agreement set forthdn the bill was not stated, and praying for leave to amend the bill,; so as to set forth the mistake, or. to - exhitiifc a- supplemental bill for tttie purpose:

VANBUREN, Attorney General, for the defendant M. moved that the biddings metioned in the petition be opened, and the premises sold again; the defendant offering to give 50 per cent, more than was bid at the former sale. The petition stated, that Wm.

THE bill stated, that the plaintiff C. having a judgment, in trust for the plaintiff K, in the ' Supreme Court, against the defendant V., docketted the 9th of July, 1817, the sheriff, on an execution issued on that judgment, and other executions on prior judgments, (but which had since been paid,) against V., sold, on the 24th of July, 1818, the right of V. to a piece of land in Watenliet, of 140 acres, of which V. was seised, subject to a mortgage, to the defendant V., for…

IN August, 1813, the defendants, Jlbijah Weston, Benjamin Merritt, and others, were joint owners of a vessel and cargo fitted out from New-Haven, Connecticut, to Porto Rico, where the cargo was sold, and the proceeds invested in a cargo of coffee, &c. shipped on board the brig Edgardo, consigned to P. Harmony, of Newport, where it arrived.

JACOB MARK, and John Speyer, (defendants,) in 1793, entered into copartnership in the city of New-York. In 1794, S. went to Europe, on business, and while there, borrowed of Engels, ofBerlin, 10,400 dollars, for which he gave a partnership note, payable with interest, at 8 per cent., which the bill charged to be usurious.

<p>A debtor in failing circumstances, or insolvent,may,bona^de, prefer one credit- or to another. A conveyance by a debtor of his property, to secure a bona fide creditor, executed prior to the 1st of June, 1800, though made in contemplation of bankruptcy, is valid, not being within the purview of the ■ bankrupt law of the United States, of the 4th of April, 1800,which did not go into operation until after the 1st of June following, nor fraudulent at common, law.</p>

THE bill stated, that the plaintiffs are the executors gT 1 Rebecca B. Brazier, deceased, and that S'. M. Brazier, the infant, is sole heir and devisee of R. B. B., deceased. That, on the 15th of March, 1808, Daniel Beach, defendant, executed a bond to R. B. B. for 4,000 dollars, payable on the 15th of March, 1811; and a mortgage on a lot of ground in Cortlandt street, as security, which was registered the 18th of March, 1808.

BILL stated, that John Bedient and Walter Hubbel, who were partners in trade, owned lofs 38, 39, and in Gold Street, in the city of New-York.

BILL stated that Tripler fy Craig, plaintiffs, were partners in trade in the city of New-York; and that the plaintiff, Fanning, was owner of the ship Zephyr, of the value of 38,000 dollars, then on a voyage -from Wew-York to Wants, with a freight to be earned, amounting to 31,009 dollars; and being indebted to the defendant Lord, on three promissory notes, Amounting to 2,569 dollars; in or-(|er to secure’the payment of the same, on the 22d of De1812, by deed, assigned the…

<p>A settlement after marriage, in pursuance of a parol agreement entered into before marriage, is not valid; aliter, if made in pursuance of a written, agreement prior to the marriage.</p> <p>Though a settlement after marriage reates a parol agreement entered into before marriage, it seems, that it is not, therefore, valid against creditors.</p> <p>A voluntary settlement, after marriage, by a person indebted at the time, is fraudulent and void against all such antecedent creditors: and that without regard to the amount of the existing debts, or the extent of the property settled, or the circumstances of the party.</p> <p>But, with regard to debts arising subsequent to the settlement, it seems,that the presumption of fraud, arising in law from the party being indebted at the time, may be repelled by circumstances: as, that the antecedent debts were secured by mortgage, or were provided for in-the settlement.</p> <p>And if the presumption of fraud is not so repelled, it seems,that subsequent creditors may impeach the settlement, by showing antecedent debts sufficient in amount to afford reasonable evidence of a fraudulent intent: for, as on the one hand, showing an antecedent debt, however small or trifling, is not sufficient to make the settlement fraudulent and void; so, on the other, the subsequent creditor, to impeach it, is not obliged to prove that the party was absolutely insolvent at the time.</p> <p>«tier Carriage* ment entered into marriage, not valid. is</p> <p>But a settlerilge,afmad“Yñ vaHdUaore mitleforeSremarri-(l -•ge» is good.</p> <p>Though asettledage ‘recit™8^ fníereí tot™beít^eem^'tíat jí w°uld not» therefore, be va1|d against cfe-</p> <p>A voluntary set-marriage atTthe timers ditors.</p> <p>a voluntary aeMperson sumea’ frauduent as against all existing debts, without regard to their amount, or to the e property stance: party. stances of the</p> <p>But w¡th re_ to^su&seseems, that the presumption of fraud arising befog indebted may*be repeldehis^are secHred by hr a provision made for them in the settle-</p> <p>And subsemayli Impeach ¿^ground debtedness- 'if hc, «ay show I debts sufficient j reasona-1 a ° "fraudulent ¡"teñot obliged soiufolmofomPlaiting Pthe settlement.</p> <p>■^Under the is (sess. 10. Cii! f*»8distinction between j,nor ^ra,ntin Séítieine0ntsntiiry</p>

THE bill stated, that Simon Swaim, father of the plaintiff, Catharine Perine, and grandfather of the plaintiff, Simon S. Perine, being seised of a farm in Richmond county, and being about to marry a second wife,,the widow Dorothy G. who, having a considerable estate, had, in contemplation of the marriage, with the knowledge and assent of S. S. conveyed it to the use of her children, in consequence thereof, and in contemplation of the said marriage, and in consideration of…

<p>BILL by the husband for a divorce.</p>

MOTION by the defendant, that the plaintiff, who resides in the state of Georgia, may give security for costs, in 500 dollars, or other sum, sufficient to indemnify the defendant, who will, necessarily, be put to very considerable expense in the defence of the suit.

THIS cause came on for argument upon the amended bill, which contained this averment: “That, immediately after the death of the said testator, your orators separated from each other, and lived separate and apart from each other, for more than one year, on account of some unfor - túnate occurrences which your orators are advised, by their counsel, it is not necessary particularly to state; but they expressly declare, that such separation did not take place with any view, or…

In April, 1814, the plaintiff, and Helen Elizabeth Gibbs, entered into a marriage contract; she being seised, in her own right, of a valuable real and personal estate, which the plaintiff agreed should be at her disposal, notwithstanding the contemplated marriage.

THE bill which was filed by the plaintiff, in behalf himself, and such other legatees of Catharine Brewerton, deceased, as might choose to come in and contribute to the expense of the suit, stated that C. B., on the 5th of June, 1815, made her will, by which she devised all her estate, real and personal, to her executors, in trust, to sell the same, and out of the proceeds of the rents, profits, and sales of the real estate, in the first ward of the city of New-York,…

VAN VE CUTEN, for the defendants, moved to pass publication (of depositions taken to impeach the credit of the plaintiff’s witnesses) in this cause, instanter. He read the affidavit of 8. one of the defendants, and who is solicitor for the other, stating, that on the 4th óf August last, he first ascertained that publication had passed in this .cause; and he made application to the court on the 17th of August, for leave to examine other witnesses, which was denied.

PETITION by the lunatic, stating that he had recovered Ms sound mind, and praying that he might be restored to Ms estate. The petition was accompanied with the affidavits of two ' persons in support of it

IN February, 1813, the defendants, Henry Poland, jun. of Philadelphia, and Richard IV. Meade, an American citi zen, residing at Cadiz, were joint owners of 500 pieces of block tin, 236 pieces belonging to P., and 264 pieces to M., then lying in Cadiz.

JOHN SEARING made his will on the 29(h of March, 1795, and appointed William Pearsall, and three other persons his executors. The testator died in October, 1797, and the will was proved by Pearsall, who qualified as executor, the other persons having refused to act.

PETITION for a re-hearing. The bill stated, that the plaintiff, a native merchant of Canton, in China, on the 33d of December, 1807, shipped on board the John and James, at' Canton, a cargo of teas, valued at 19,837 dollars and 77 cent's, and consigned the same to the defendants,, Edmund Fanning, Henry Fanning, and Willet Coles, being partners in trade, owners of vessels, and factors and commission merchants, to sell for the plaintiff, and which were received by the…

THE bill stated that the father of the plaintiff’s wife, died intestate, the 28th of September, 1805, leaving her his sole heir, and widow', since deceased. That the plaintiff and his wife were married in June, 1817. That the intestate left a considerable personal estate, more than sufficient to pay all his debts, and died seised of a large real estate.

PURSUANT to the decretal order entered in this ¡cause, on the 29th of September, 1815, (for which, as well as the facts of the case, and the opinion of the court, see S. C. vol. 1. p. 550. 557. 559.) the master to whom the reference was made, on the 1st of June last, reported a balance of principal and interest due from the defendant to the plaintiffs, of 31,894 dollars and 52 cents; and that, jn taking the account, he had credited the defendant with all moneys loaned by him…

J. Emott, for the defendants, on an affidavit, stating that two witnesses were aged, and could not, without great trouble, inconvenience, and expense, be taken before the Master, who resided in a distant part of the state, as witnesses, on a reference pending before him, moved for leave to take their examinations before a Master, in the county where the witnesses resided.