Volume 3 — Sandford's Chancery Reports

The bill in this cause was filed on the 25th of November, 1843, for the dissolution of a partnership - existing between the complainant, Berry, and the defendants, in certain ferries between the city… Held: seven trustees were voted in, and a certificate of their election was filed, ■—by which it appeared that all the original trustees were elected except the complainant and Boerum.

The bill was filed on the 24th day of July, 1844. The complainants are the executors, devisees and legatees of Charles Wilkes, who died on the 30th August, 1833, leaving personal property amounting to about $250,000—besides a large real estate. His executors were his sons, Horatio, Hamilton and George, and his widow Janet Wilkes; all of whom qualified.

The bill was filed April 29thz 1843, by George P. Burrell as the trustee of the separate estate of Mrs. Louisa M. Stewart, and Mrs. Stewart by Burrell as her next friend, against Michael K. Burke, Marcus Bull, Henry S. McKean, W. Coventry H. Waddell the general assignee in bankruptcy, and J. Hopkins Stewart, the husband of Mrs. Stewart.

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage executed August 26th, 1835, by S. Chamberlain and his wife to The American Life Insurance and Trust Company, on lands in the city of Buffalo, The mortgage was assigned to the complainants on the 15th of November, 1842. The mortgagees were a corporation created by' the legislature of the state of Maryland. The mortgage was made payable at the office of the agency of the company in the city of New York.

In 1825, Ephraim Wilcox, being the owner of a farm of one hundred acres in Romulus, afterwards Varick, in the county of Seneca, mortgaged it to the loan commissioners of that county, to secure the payment of $131, with interest annually. Isaiah W. Smith, in March, 1831, purchased the farm, subject to the mortgage.

This was a suit to foreclose two mortgages on the same premises, executed by R. Manning to James Campbell, one for $3000, and the other for $500, with interest at six per cent, payable half yearly; which were assigned by Campbell to the complainants, April 30th, 1836. The defendant Manning in his answer, claimed that he was entitled to be credited on the principal of the mortgages, with thirteen semi-annual payments of seventeen dollars and fifty cents each.

In July, 1817, James Dobson, being seised of a tract of land on Staten Island, mortgaged it to Charles Racey, to secure the payment of $1500, with interest.

This was a suit for the partition of lands in the county of Suffolk, of which Epenetus Conklin died seised on the 23d of April, 1801. By his will dated four days before his death, he made the following disposition. “ Item.

This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage for $2435, executed by Lewis Katen to the complainant, on lands in Newtown, Queen’s County, dated September 23, 1841. There was a prior-mortgage of $700; the premises were worth considerably less than the amount of the two liens ; and the mortgagor was insolvent. In October, 1842, Katen conveyed the premises, subject to the mortgage, to Daniel Maujer who took possession and continued it until the foreclosure.

The bill was filed for the specific performance of an agreement, by which the defendant covenanted to sell and convey or procure to be conveyed, to the complainant, a tract of land in Triangle, Broome county, on receiving four hundred dollars, at a day stipulated.

The bill in this cause was filed by Edward H. Smith and Nathaniel Smith, executors of Edmund Smith deceased, on the 22d day of June, 1843, and was amended July 29, 1844.

The bill was filed in January, 1842, by William Banks, as the administrator of James Campbell, and as the executor of Margaret Campbell, deceased, against Janet Wilkes, executrix, and George Wilkes and Hamilton Wilkes, surviving executors of Charles Wilkes, deceased.

The bill was filed against Mrs. • Elizabeth Ludlow and Edward H. Ludlow and Elizabeth his wife, to obtain payment, out of the separate estate of the latter, of an account for merchandize, charged to have been sold and delivered to her by the complainants, on the faith and credit of such estate.

‘This was a suit by a judgment creditor of Burnham, in winch Brown was made a defendant as having received a conveyance of twelve acres of land in Portage, Allegany county, -of which Burnham owned an undivided half. The interest of Burnham was established, and an effort was made to prove that Brown.was privy to a fraudulent designan the conveyance, and thereupon to charge him with costs.

<p>John G. Coster, of the city of New York, died on the eighth day of August 1844, seised and possessed of a very large real and personal estate. He left a last will and testament, dated April 9th, 1842, to which was added a codicil dated December 30th, 1842. The complainants, Gerard H. Coster, George W. Coster and Henry A. Coster, were the executors of John G. Coster.</p> <p>On the 9th of December, 1844, they filed the bill in this cause, against John H. Coster and Sarah Adeline his wife, and their six children, (all of whom were infants,) together with the heirs at law of the testator, and the other parties by possibility interested in the subject matter, to obtain a construction of the meaning and operation of the will and codicil in respect of eleven equal one hundred and sixth parts of the testator’s estate, given in trust for the benefit of his son, John H. Coster, and the family of the latter.</p> <p>The clause of the will upon which the questions in the cause arose, was in the following words, viz:</p> <p>“ Twelfthly—Of the said rest and residue of my estate, real and personal as hereinbefore described and subject as aforesaid, I give, devise and bequeath eleven one hundred and six parts thereof to Henry Arnold Coster, to have and to hold the same, in trust nevertheless for him to keep the same in its present ’ condition, or to sell and convey the same as he may deem most expedient, and to invest the proceeds thereof in productive real property, or in bonds and mortgages, or stocks, or such other securities as the said Henry Arnold Coster in the exercise of a sound discretion may deem safest and most expedient, and to collect and receive the rents, interest, income and profits of the proportion of my estate hy this clause of my will devised, and of the proceeds thereof, during the life of my son, John H. Coster; and to apply the said rents, issues, income and profits, to the use of my son, John H. Coster*, during his natural life, for the support of himself and his family during that time, in such way, manner or form, and in such sums, and at such times, as the said Henry Arnold Coster, in the exercise of a just and reasonable discretion may think proper, and at and after the death of my said son John H. Coster, the said last mentioned trust shall end and determine, and the said eleven one hundred and sixth parts of my estate, together with all the increase and accumulations thereof remaining in the hands of the said Henry Arnold Coster, shall be divided and distributed between and amongst, and conveyed to the children of the said John H. Coster living at the time of his death, and the child or children of every child of his that shall have died before him, in equal proportions, share and share alike, per stirpes, and not per capita.”</p> <p>By the fifteenth section of the will it was provided, that if John H. Coster should die without leaving any children surviving him, then that the share devised as above for his benefit, should be divided among other children of the testator.</p> <p>The codicil to the will was in these words ; 11 all the property estate or interests whether real or personal, which I have by my said will devised, or bequeathed in trust for the wife, and children of my son John H. Coster, and their children, heirs, or either of them, I hereby devise, and bequeath to my said John, to have and to hold to him, his heirs, and assigns, as and for his own proper estate, hereby for that purpose revoking said trust.”</p> <p>John H. Costerand wife put in an answer, insisting among other things, that the codicil operated as a revocation of the trust in the will above set forth, and that he was entitled to receive his proportion of the income of the estate, freed from the trust. And they alleged that the sole object of the testator in making the codicil, was to revoke the trust in question.</p> <p>The infant defendants answered by their guardians ad litem, and the cause was heard as to them on the proofs taken. The other defendants suffered the bill to be taken as confessed.</p>

This was a bill filed by Cornelius McLean, to foreclose a mortgage, executed by Aaron Marsh to Noah T. Pike, on the 18th of January, 1839, to secure $3000, according to the tenor of a bond given by Pike therewith. On the 30th of April, 1841, Marsh sold and conveyed the equity of redemption in the mortgaged premises subject to the mortgage, to McLean, who by the terms of the deed to him, assumed the payment of the bond and mortgage as a part of the consideration money.

On the first hearing of this cause, the trusts of the will of the testator, Daniel Carmichael, by which all his lands were vested in his executors, were decreed to be void; and the bequests of his personal property were also held to be invalid, with the exception of some small specific legacies, and a provision for the support of his wife.

The bill in this cause, filed June 28th, 1844, stated that on the 19th day of April, 1815, The Rectors,'-Church-wardens and Vestry-men of Trinity Church, in the city of New York, executed a lease of two lots of ground owned by them, situated on Murray street, to Jane Adams, for the term of nineteen years from the 25th day of March, 1815, reserving an annual rent of $303 30 for the first five years of the term, and $25 for the remaining fourteen years.

The bill in this cause, filed January 16th, 1844, by Charles W. Loomer, an infant aged sixteen years, who prosecuted by William T. Whittemore, his next friend, set forth the following facts: On the 1st day of Mfiy, 1837, Otis Loomér and Jane T. his wife, the father and mother of the complainant, executed to Paul Spofford, Thomas Tileston, and Benjamin F. Wheelwright, the defendant, as collateral security fox Otis Loomer’s bond of the same date for $25,000, payable in one…

The bill was filed on the 9th day of September, 1842, by Gabriel Shaw, Fletcher Wilson and Melvil Wilson, merchants of the city of London, trading while in business, under the firm of Thomas Wilson & Co., against David Leavitt, Receiver of The North American Trust and Banking Company, Thomas G. Talmage, Richard M. Blatchford, and The Governor and Company of the Bank of'England.

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage for $4000, dated November 29, 1832, and executed by Abraham Cutler and his wife to the complainants, on one hundred and six acres of land in the town of Lodi, Seneca county, and one hundred and eighty acres in Hector, Tompkins county. Several parties were made defendants, as occupants and subsequent purchasers and incumbrancers.

The bill in this cause was filed to settle the construction of the will of Marte Beeckman, who died in 1826, leaving real and personal estate, in the county of Rensselaer.

The bill was filed in September, 1841, by several of the children and heirs of Barent De Klyn, against Charles De Klyn, Charles S. Watkins, William H. Ireland, and Joseph Ireland; all of whom were served with process, and put in answers. The facts, so far as they are pertinent to the legal points reported, are stated in the judgment of the court.

This was a suit to foreclose a mortgage, executed by James Frost Jr. and John L. Bevins, on two small lots of ground at Spraker’s Basin, in the county of Montgomery. The mortgagors owned the premises as tenants in common. On one of the lots a large stone building was erected, sufficiently capacious for two stores, and which by means of a partition had been so occupied.

This was a judgment creditor’s suit, which was heard on the pleadings and proofs. The answer, among other things, stated that on, &c., the defendant executed and delivered to W. A. D., an assignment of all his real and personal property, except such as by law was exempt from execution, in trust for the payment of his debts ratably, The complainant objected to the reading of this deed in evidence, under the statement in the answer.

The first cause was a bill filed October 7th, 1842, by James G. King, Edward Prime, Samuel Ward and Denning Duer, transacting business under the name and firm of Prime, Ward & King; against Benjamin Vickar and Isaphene, his wife, John L. Lawrence, administrator, &e., of Isaac Lawrence, deceased, and William. Beach Lawrence.

The bill in this cause was filed September 12, 1842, and as amended August 2, 1843, stated that the complainants, a corporation in the city of New York, having banking and other powers, in July, 1838, being in want of a considerable sum of money, to enable them to discharge its liabilities and their hank to resume specie payments, opened a negotiation with Mr. Duer, the vice president of The American Life Insurance and Trust Company, a corporation created by the state of…

The bill in this cause was filed by Michael Neefus on the 12th of November, 1844. It stated that on the first day of May, 1835, the defendant, A. Vanderveer, executed a mortgage for $15,300, on one hundred acres of land in Flatbush in the county of Kings, to Michael and John Neefus. The mortgage was given for a part of the purchase money, and was payable five years from its date, with interest at six per cent., semi-annually.

The circumstances under which these suits came before the court, are stated in the opinion delivered. It is proper to add, that after the receiver became vested with Hezekiah Weed’s things in action, he compromised with Smull and Miles, for the claim of Weed prosecuted in his original suit against them, and which Nathaniel Weed sought to continue in the supplemental suit first above entitled.

The bill was filed May 19th, 1845, to compel the defendant to deliver to the complainant, a- bill of exchange drawn on the former, by a house in Philadelphia, and remitted to the complainant. The cause was heard on the pleadings and p oofs. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The bill in this cause was filed, February 7th, 1843, by Henry Rhodes against his brothers, George Rhodes and Jacob Rhodes, and two married sisters with their husbands. It set forth that by the will of their father, a farm of upwards of two hundred acres, situate in the town of Lansing, in the county of Tompkins, was devised to Henry Rhodes, and Andrew Rhodes, since deceased, as tenants in common.

The bill in this cause was filed, October 26th, 1842, by Henry Green and Thomas G. Talmage, as receivers of The Utica Insurance Company, to foreclose a mortgage on lands in Westmoreland in the county of Oneida, executed by Asaph Seymour to Russell Clark, to secure $1400, dated December 1, 1817, and assigned to the Utica Insurance Company, October 30, 1827.

The bill was filed in May, 1844, by James Bloodgood Carter, an infant, by his father as his next friend, against Thomas Tom Bloodgood and Bindley Murray Moore, surviving executors of James Bloodgood, deceased, and Frederick J. Goodwin and Catharine T., his wife.

<p>Where two successive mortgages were executed to a married woman, on premises in which she had a right of dower, and were afterwards assigned by her and her husband to the trustee of her separate estate, previous to which, and before the second mortgage was given, she and her husband entered into possession of the premises, and continued in possession until the trustee proceeded to foreclose the mortgage;</p> <p>Held, 1. That the husband before the assignment, was the mortgagee, jure mariti, and thus became mortgagee in possession.</p> <p>2. That no notice of the assignment being given to the owner of the equity of redemption, the latter was entitled to treat the husband as mortgagee in possession, during the whole period.</p> <p>3. That the clear rents and profits which the husband received, or ought to have received, must be applied to the reduction of the mortgage debt.</p> <p>Where a mortgagee, having a right of dower in the lands mortgaged, enters into the lands after the money is due, the entry will be deemed to have been made as mortgagee.</p> <p>The revised statutes relative to Uses and Trusts, do not apply to a marriage settlement of personal property creating no future interests.</p>

<p>The court of chancery is as much restricted as any other court, to the issues made by the pleadings; and while it endeavors to avoid technical and narrow grounds of objection, it cannot, without losing sight of essential principles, admit evidence of a different case from that pleaded.</p> <p>There is a wide distinction between a payment and a set off; and under an answer setting up payments made towards a mortgage debt, evidence of corresponding sums due from the mortgagee to the mortgagor, which might be set off, is inadmissible.</p> <p>There is no rule of law, which will apply distinct debts due from and to the same parties as a payment of each other, unless by the assent of both parties, or upon proof of facts from which such assent is clearly inferrible.</p> <p>A course of dealing between parties, sometimes entitles two partners to set off their joint demand against the debt of one of the partners.</p> <p>Complainants succeeding in a foreclosure suit, excluded from recovering costs unnecessarily incurred.</p> <p>In a foreclosure, where one of three mortgagees died pending the suit, which was revived and proceeded in the name of the survivors, without any objection being made until the hearing, the court made a decree of foreclosure and sale, with suitable provisions to protect the rights of the legal representative of the deceased mortgagee, the complainants also undertaking to give effect to such rights.</p> <p>•Form of the provision for that purpose in the decree; Note a} at the end of the case,</p>

The bill in this cause was filed, October 10th, 1844, by Pulaski Jacks and Hamlet Jacks, lately partners in New York, and by Jesse D. Price, as assignee under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, against David B. Nichols, to compel, the latter to deliver up to be cancelled, sundry promissory notes, alleged to be usurious, and to surrender the collateral security thereto.

The bill was filed, May 27th, 1844, by Charles G. Smedberg against Friend Whittlesey and James Van Nostrand. The defendants answered, and proofs were taken, after which Mr. Smedberg died. The complainant was appointed his administrator, and revived the suit on the 27th of October, 1845. The case made by the bill was as follows.

<p>In a suit for an account of a joint adventure, the offers to account made by a de» fendant before the suit, do not prevent the usual decretal order that the accounts be taken.</p> <p>The giving of negotiable promissory notes for the price, is not of itself such a pay» ment, as will constitute one a bona fide purchaser in equity.</p> <p>But if such notes have been negotiated, and when due are apparently, and so far as the makers have reason to believe, really, in the hands of a holder in good faith, for value, in the usual course of trade; the makers are warranted in paying the same, although they then have been informed of the equity of the party claiming the thing sold to them; and they may rely upon the giving of the notes and such payment, as constituting them bona fide purchasers.</p> <p>An assignment for the benefit of creditors, giving preferences, made in June, 1842, by one hopelessly insolvent, against whom there were judgments and executions, and who in five months, became an applicant for the benefit of the Bankrupt Act of 1841 ; held, to have been made in contemplation of bankruptcy, within the meaning of that act, and therefore void.</p> <p>Where, on a bill filed by the assignee under such a void assignment, the general assignee in bankruptcy being a defendant, claimed and was held entitled to the fund, and the other defendants had not raised any objection to the voluntary assignee’s title; the suit was allowed to proceed for the benefit of the assignee in bankruptcy; he being put to his election to adopt the suit, or abandon his claim.</p>

<p>A merchant who was sued for his debts and was insolvent, sold his entire stock in trade to his confidential clerk, on a credit of from three to eighteen months. It was a part of the arrangement that the clerk should continue the business with the merchant’s sister, who was to be allowed to draw out of the concern, an annual sum, and was to pay the same to the merchant, for his assistance in the business. Held, that the sale was fraudulent and void as against ereditors.(a)</p> <p>The vendor assigned the notes which he received on the fraudulent sale, to an assignee for the benefit of himself and other preferred creditors of the assignor. Held, that the assignee was not such a bona fide purchaser as to be protected in the notes or their proceeds.</p> <p>Held also, that the acceptance of such an assignment, was not an affirmance of the fraudulent sale on the part of creditors, so as to prevent other creditors from im-. peaching it for fraud.</p> <p>A creditor at the time of a fraudulent sale, who subsequently recovers a judgment, may on the return of his execution unsatisfied, file a bill to set aside the sale; and may follow the proceeds of the property sold, into the hands of any number of intermediate assignees, and it is not beyond his reach, until it lodges in the hands of a creditor in good faith, who has received and applied it upon his debt, or of a bona fide purchaser without notice of the fraud.</p>

This was a bill to foreclose two mortgages executed by P. H. Perry and wife to the complainants, for securing $9000; one on lands in Auburn, the other on lands in Aurelius, in the county of Cayuga. Both mortgages were dated June 26th, 1838; one was recorded the same day, and the other on the 19th of July, 1838.

The bill in this cause was filed, in March —, 1828, by James B. Clarke and Eleanor his wife, of Brooklyn, Kings comity, and Peter Clarke and Maria his wife, of Mentz in the county of Cayuga, against Diana Fisher, (in the bill called Diana Rapelye,) Samuel A. Willoughby, Magdalena Cornelia Fisher, and Roswell Saltonstall and Catharine his wife.

The complainants held notes made by parties of the name of Wilber, on which the defendant Holmes, was an indorser and surety. They recovered a judgment against Holmes for the amount, January 16th, 1843, and on the 20th of February issued an execution.

Reuben Moak, a merchant in Schoharie county, became deeply indebted and insolvent, and his goods were levied upon and sold by virtue of -an execution in favor of John Moak. Most of the goods were bid off by a son of the latter in his behalf, and were then sold without being removed, to William T. a son of Reuben Moak, who continued the business in the same store, with his father aiding him.

This case came before the court upon exceptions taken by the creditors of Henry C. Barnes, to the report of the Vice-Chancellor of the third circuit, acting as a master, made under an order of reference upon the petition of Huldah D. Barnes, the widow of Henry, The material facts may be thus stated. The suit was originally for the partition of a farm in Canaan, in the county of Columbia, of which Ebenezer Church died seised in 1835.

The bill in this cause was filed, April 4, 1844, by Samuel Douglass against Hannah Viele and Stephen P. VV. Douglass, for relief in respect of a parol agreement on the partition of the lands of Samuel Douglass, deceased, the father of the parties, who died intestate on the 14th of December, 1811.

<p>The owner of two lots, which had been sold on an execution against him, agreed with M. that she should buy one of the lots, and pay the price by redeeming both from the sheriff’s sale. M. was to take a deed from the sheriff, pay all liens and charges, and on receiving the surplus, beyond the price of the one lot, with interest, at a day fixed, was to convey the other lot to the vendor ; or if such payment were not made, was to retain both lots. The vendor was by a like covenant, to give possession of the lot sold to M.—Held, that by the agreement, M. became the purchaser of the one lot, and took the other lot as a security for her advances beyond the price of the former ; and that she was bound to convey to the vendor, on being refunded, such excess with interest.</p> <p>Held further, that if the contract were to be treated as an agreement by M. to sell the other lot to the former owner, on payment of such excess, and receiving possession of the one at the time stipulated ; a partial failure to deliver possession at that time, would not warrant M. in refusing to convey the olher lot, on receiving, the excess.</p> <p>A bill for redemption, which sets forth a liquidation by the parties of the sum payable, and an offer to pay that sum, which was refused, need not contain an offer to pay what may be found due on an account to be taken.</p>

<p>A devise of a farm to four persons in fee, to be equally divided between them ; and in case either of them died without issue living at his death, then the share devised to him, to be equally divided between the survivors and their heirs forever; creates a vested estate in fee in each of the four devisees, in an undivided fourth of the farm, determinable as to each on his dying without issue living at .his death ; and the devise over is a valid future estate in expectancy, or executory devise.</p> <p>Where the court of chancery, under the statute authorizing the sale of infant’s lands, directed the sale of a farm, in which four infants as tenants in common, had a fee determinable as to each on his death without issue, and in which there was a devise over to the survivors upon such contingency; it will be deemed that the court intended that the purchaser should acquire the whole title, and on any of the proceeds coming within the control of the court, it will require the infants on becoming of age, to convey to the purchasers, as a condition of their receiving such proceeds.</p> <p>The conversion of lands of infants into personalty, by means, of a sale under the statute, does not alter the character of the property, in respect of those who had interests in the land which might be affected by such an alteration.</p> <p>Thus, where all the infants shares were determinable fees, with executory devises to the survivors, and the whole estate in the land was sold ; it was held that on the death of one, by which the devise over in her share would have taken effect, if the land had not been converted, her share of the proceeds must be paid to the executory devisees, and that neither her husband nor her administrator had any right to such share.</p> <p>The interest which accrued on the proceeds in her life time, belongs to her administrator.</p> <p>The orders of the court, made on the sale of infants lands under the statute, and distributing the proceeds, though conclusive between the infants and purchasers, do not conclude the infants as between themselves, as to their respective rights and interests in the fund.</p> <p>A purchaser under an order for the sale of infants lands, who has never been evicted or disturbed in his possession, cannot resist the foreclosure of his mortgage for , the purchase money, on the ground that he did not obtain .a good title.</p> <p>A controversy decided between co-defendants, in respect of the fund sought .and recovered by the bill; where the material facts were stated in the bill, and their respective claims were argued at the hearing.</p>

The bill in this cause was filed, October 1, 1844, by diaries Sagory, as receiver of The New York Banking Company, against Cornelius Dubois, Jr., a stockholder in the company, to compel him to pay up the unpaid balance on the shares of capital stock owned by him.

The original bill was filed, in December, 1836, by Martin I. Borst, against Alexander Boyd, William A. Boyd, and David Zeilley, for the redemption of six equal undivided seventh parts of a farm of one hundred and twenty acres, situated on the Schoharie Creek, in the town of Middleburgh, in the county of Schoharie, with certain mills and mill privileges thereon.

The bill was filed by Elizabeth Ordronaux against Sebastian N. Helie, claiming that the latter had possessed himself of a very large amount of the property and effects of her late husband, John Ordronaux, of which she claimed an account and payment to her.

The bill was filed in September, 1841, by the executors of John Hone, deceased, against Charles A. Heckscher and John Aspinwall, assignees of Isaac S. Hone, and John Aspinwall as administrator of Mrs. Joanna, the widow of John Hone. The following are the material circumstances on which the judgment of the court was pronounced; as ascertained from the pleadings and proofs.

The bill was filed in August, 1840, against the heirs at law of John Wyckoff, late of Gowanus, in the county of Kings, deceased, to compel the payment of a promissory note made by him, dated July 2, 1834, and payable thirty days after date to James Buchanan or order. It appeared that the note was signed by the intestate, and was indorsed by J. C. Buchanan, for the payee.

The bill in this cause was filed on the fourteenth day of February, 1840, by Lemuel Arnold and Caroline his wife, Charlotte Gilbert, Jane Gilbert and William Gilbert, against Garret Gilbert, Clinton Gilbert, Edward P. Heyer, and Silvanus Miller, surviving executors and trustees of the last will and testament of William W. Gilbert, deceased, and Betsey Gilbert, David Gilbert, Clinton Gilbert, Warren Gilbert, George W. Gilbert, Garret Gilbert, Elsey Fish, Franklin Y. Tail and…

This was a bill to foreclose a mortgage for $2600, on lands in East Bloomfield, in the county of Ontario, dated April 1,1840, and executed by Morris Newton and Darius Newton, to the complainant. Amanda Newton was made a defendant, as having some title or interest, to or in the equity of redemption. The testimony showed that the lands were conveyed to her, subject to the mortgage.

In November, 1840, the. complainant lent his notes for $3,100, to Joseph Leo Wolf, which the latter agreed to protect; and for that purpose he lodged merchandize with the complainant. This was subsequently relinquished on an agreement of indemnity in some other mode ; but before completing it, J. Leo W ol.C' departed from New York for Liverpool, in the- steamship President, on the 11th of March, 1841.

The bill was filed January 20, 1845, against William J. Staples, The Trust Fire Insurance Compan}*-, and others, to foreclose a mortgage executed by Staples to James H. Titus, on four lots of ground… Held: executed by one duin. In 1841, Seeley foreclosed the duin mortgage in chaneery, and in behalf of the parties interested in it, bid off the mortgaged premises at the master’s sale, for $780. But the sale was never consummated, nor any deed given.

The bill was filed, September 8th, 1843, by Hays & St. John, against W. & J. Currie who were partners in business, and N, Kimball, who was charged with conspiring with them in respect of the subject matter of the suit. The Currie’s answered jointly, and Kimball put in a separate answer. Replications were filed,- and proofs were taken on both sides. The case made by the pleadings and proofs may be thus stated.

The bill in this cause was filed, in June, 1839, by Mahala Ward, against George Smith, William R. Mulford, and Nathan Barnes, and against several other parties who were heirs or descendants of Stephen Baker the elder, deceased. It. appeared by the pleadings and proofs, that the decedent died ■ seised of a small farm and a small tract of woodland and of salt meadow, in Easthampton, in the county of Suffolk.

This was a creditor’s suit on a judgment recovered against both of the defendants, in the court of common pleas of the county of Dutchess, to which county an execution against their property had been issued and returned unsatisfied. The only statement in the bill relative to the residence of the defendants, was that they reside in the county of Dutchess. The defendants appeared separately and demurred to the bill for want of equity.

The bill was filed by Elkanah Sarles, October 10, 1845, against Keziah Sarles, her son Samuel Sarles, and against the other heirs of Samuel Sarles the elder deceased, charging upon Mrs. Sarles as tenant for life, and on Samuel as her tenant, the commission of various acts of waste on a farm of about one hundred and sixty five acres, situated in the county of Westchester, of which the decedent died seised and possessed.

On the first day of May, 1842, the defendants, E. Stall and wife, executed to Walter Righter a mortgage on a farm of 195 acres, in the town of Clay in the county of Onondaga, to secure the sum of $3081, according to E. Stall’s bond of the same date, the condition of which provided that the interest should be paid annually for two years from that date, and thereafter the principal was to be paid in instalments of $300 each, with interest to be paid annually on all sums unpaid.

This was a bill for specific performance, filed October 17th, 1845, by Francis C. Yoorhees and his partners, against Nicholas De Myer. The bill stated that in May, 1817, De Myer claiming to be the owner in fee of 187-| acres of land in the town of Lexington, in the county of Greene, in the Hardenburgh Patent, agreed to sell the same to William Griffin, for four dollars per acre.

The bill xvas filed September 16,1843, by Samuel M. Thompson and others, as the proprietors of the toll bridge over the Harlem river at Harlem, against The New York and Harlem Rail Road Company, Gouverneur Morris, Lewis Morris, Gerard W. Morris, William H. Morris, Richard V. Morris, Henry Morris, and Richard L. Morris; for the purpose of restraining the defendants from violating the complainants franchise through and by means of the rail road bridge at Harlem, and -for an…