Volume 6 — Johnson's New York Chancery Reports

BILL of revivor and supplement, (filed March 3, 1831,) by the administrators of John U Mnwfords deceased-, ' ’ against the defendant.

THE bill stated, that the plaintiffs, for the last twenty years, had been in possession of certain mill-seats and privileges for machinery and water-works, upon the outlet of lake B., and the outlet of another lake, erected in the towns of Greenwich and, Argijle, in the county of Washington, and during all that time have had several mills thereon.

IN pursuance of the decree in this case, (Vide S. C. Vol. 4. p. 334.) the parties ascertained, that a moiety of the expense of taking down the old wall, and of erecting the new one, to the height of the old wall, was one hundred and ninety-eight dollars. The parties now submitted to the Chancellor the following points ; (1) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on that sum, and from what time ?

THE bill stated, that the plaintiff, as the wife of Elijah Haviland, filed her bill on the 27th of May, 1816, for a divorce, and charged the defendant to that bill with adultery, and cruel usage, and the abandonment of her; that he finally abandoned her, and her two children by him, in 1804, and left the United States, but returned in 1816. That, in that interval of time, she presumed that he was dead, and married again.

<p>The review and correction of all errors, mistakes, and abuses, in the exercise of the powers of inferior and subordinate jurisdictions, and in the official acts of public officers, belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court.</p> <p>As, where the supervisors of a town, under the acts of the legislature, and pursuant to the vote of the town, allowed bounties for the destruction of wolves, the amount of which was inserted in the annual tax list, to be levied and collected of the owners of lands, &sc.; an injunction, to restrain the collection of the sums so allowed for bounties, was denied, especially as there was no allegation of Fraud or corruption, but, at most, an error of judgment in the board of supervisors.</p>

THE bill stated, that C., the wife of the plaintiff, (x., was a daughter of Frederick Fisher, deceased, who, by his will, dated February 23, 1808, bequeathed to his son, Daniel F., the defendant, a farm of 240 acres, and 20 acres of woodland, and after the death or remarriage of his wife, he gave to the plaintiff, C., a milch cow, and 1500 dollars, in money, one fourth thereof to be paid by each of his sons, Daniel, Harman, John, and Jesse, within three years after the death…

THE bill, in this case, after stating the facts as in the last case, as to the will of F. F., the testator, 8tc., added further, that Harman F., a son of the testator, died on the 31st of January, 1815, intestate. That the testator, by his will, devised to his son, Harman, the west half of his farm, worth 3,000 dollars. That after the death of the testator, H. entered into possession of the farm so devised to him, and died in possession, and the land descended to his heirs.

PETITION of John Whitehead, a purchaser at the master’s sale, under a decree in this cause, on the foreclosure of a mortgage. The mortgaged premises, which were sold under an order of the 6 th of June, 1821, pursuant to public advertisement and notice, consisted of two lots, No. 42 and No. 43, on Broome-street, each 25 feet wide, in front and rear, No. 42, being 100 feet deep, and the other 75 feet deep.

<p>This Court does not interfere by injunction, unless the party applying for the remedy has a vested right, legal or equitable, which may be greatly, if not irreparably affected by the acts sought to be restrained.</p> <p>Where no commissioners of estimate and assessment have been appointed under the act relative to opening, altering, &c. the streets in the city of New-York, (sess. 86. oh. 86. s. 178. 2 N. R. L. 842. 408.) no rights become vested, either in the corporation of the city, or in the owners of property affected by the proposed improvements, in consequence of the proceedings under the act, so as to prevent the corporation, on the one hand, from abandoning their proposed plan of improvement, or the owners of the property so affected, on the other, from using and improving it, in any manner they'may think fit; an injunction will not, therefore, be granted, at the instance of the corporation, to restrain the individuals owning property to be affected by the proposed improvement, from erecting buildings on their land, or using it at their discretion.</p> <p>And, it seems, that the corporation, after proceedings have com- , menced to carry into effect the plan of improvement, may, at any time before the commissioners of estimate,and assessment have reported, and their report has been confirmed by the Supreme Court, pursuant to the act, abandon the plan, and discontinue the proceedings altogether.</p>

THE original bill was filed in 1820, by Joh R. Murray, (trustee for the defendant, Charles, Count Re Rotten-ham and others,) and the executors, heirs, and devisees of John Murray, deceased, against Robert M‘Menomy, and Jacob Mark, as defendants. The bill was, afterwards, amended, by making Louis Mark, Moretz Mark, Charles, Count Re Rottenham, J. G. Sarasin, and J. P. Leerse, parties defendants.

THE bill stated, that the plaintiff is the only acting executor of John Schermerhorne, who died in 1798, and, by his will, dated the 9th of January, 1798, devised his estate to his wife, for life, and, after her death, to his son, Abraham, in fee, upon condition, that he, his heirs, &c. after the death of his wife, should comfortably and reasonably support and maintain his daughter Nelly, during her life, to the satisfaction of his executors; and that in case the executors,…

<p>The 35th rule of this Court, which declares, that “ no process shall be issued, or other proceeding had, on any final decree, until the same shall have been enrolled,” does not, it seems, apply to decretal sales of mortgaged premises; but, at any rate, if the enrolment, which is matter of form, be, afterwards, made and perfected, it will have'relation back to the time Of the decree, and protect the intermediate sale.</p>

PETITION of the defendants, stating, that only one year’s interest is in arrear, and due and unpaid, on a bond and mortgage given to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs, in January last, sued the bond at law, and filed a bill to foreclose the mortgage, in this Court; and praying, that the bill be dismissed, with costs, or that the suit in this Court be stayed until the plaintiffs shall have discontinued their suit at law, or pressed the same to the utmost extent, and…

The answer of the defendant, Thompson, was filed on the 1st of August, 1820, and a replication was filed th'e 29th of September, 1821, and a rule to produce witnesses entered by the defendant on the same day.

BILL filed by the plaintiff, as administratrix of James ' Renwiclc, deceased, June 28, 1821. It stated, that the intestate, on the 27th of February, 1800, purchased of Nathaniel Olcott, twenty-five shares in. the New-York Insurance Company, for his own use, and paid for them with his own moneys, but bought the stock in the name of the defendant, Benjamin Gray, then residing in England.

THE bill stated, that the plaintiff, Foster, on the 30th of August, 1815, was seised in fee of lot No. 147, in the Onondaga reservation; and, in November, 1815, sold and conveyed to the plaintiff, Bissell, for the consideration of 0,600 dollars, 100 acres of the lot, and the residue of the lot to the plaintiff, Peck, for the consideration of 4,400 dollars.

<p>On a bill filed by a wife against her husband for a divorce, for adultery, a decree of divorce a vinculo matrimonii was pronounced | and the master reported the value of the defendant’s real estate to be 3750 dollars, and of his personal estate, 800 dollars,. and the whole annual value thereof to be 3S5 dollars, the Court allowed the plaintiff 100 dollars per annum, for her alimony, payable half yearly.</p> <p>The general rule, in such cases, seems to be, to allow the wife a third, or, at least, a fourth part of the annual income of the husband’s real estate; but it is in the power and discretion of the Court to vary the allowance from time to time, according to the circumstances of the parties,</p>

<p>THIS was a bill, filed January 23d, 1822, for a discovery and account, and to recover back money paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant for excess of interest, over and above the lawful interest, on various loans and money transactions, between the parties, from June, 1810, to June or July, 1818. The bill stated the particular transactions in which the defendant had, from time to time, exacted usurious interest, and alleged, that the plaintiffs have paid to him 340 dollars, for excess of interest, beyond the lawful rate of interest; and they offered to pay to him all the principal and lawful interest due and owing to him ; but defendant refused to account, or to repay the usurious excess, and, on the 31st of December, 1821, entered up judgment on a judgment bond, and issued execution, &e. The bill prayed, that the defendant may be decreed to come to a just and fair settlement with the plaintiffs, and that so much of the principal and interest, as was fairly due to the defendant, on the transactions stated in the bill, be allowed to him, and the balance paid over by him to the plaintiffs; and that the defendant be decreed to deliver up to the plaintiffs, the checks, drafts, fee., mentioned in the bill, and to acknowledge satisfaction of the judgment entered up against the plaintiffs, and for an injunction to restrain his proceeding on the execution, and for discovery and general relief. An injunction was accordingly granted.</p> <p>The defendant, on the 22d of February, 1822, put in a plea, which was sworn to, that if the plaintiffs, or either of them, ever had any cause of suit against the defendant, concerning the moneys charged as paid beyond lawful interest, or were entitled to a discovery concerning the same, such sums of money were not received, nor did they accrue, nor did the right of discovery exist within one year before the bill was filed, and process of subpoena served; and, for that reason, the defendant was not liable to be sued, &tc. • That the defendant, within the year aforesaid, had not agreed to come to any account with the plaintiffs, to satisfy them for the moneys received. That none of the sums, charged to have been received as usurious, were paid within one year before filing the bill, &c.; and the defendant pleaded the limitation, contained in the act, entitled “ an act for preventing usury,” passed February 8th, 1787, (Sess. 10. ch. 13.) setting forth the second and fourth sections of the act j and pleading the matters aforesaid, and the statute, in bar of the bill.</p> <p>The cause was set down for hearing on the plea.</p>

THE bill, (filed August 4th, 1819,) stated, that in June, 1817, Josiah Shaw, who was then seised of. a lot of land, or farm, being the south half of lot No. 33, in Curry's patent, in Charleston, Montgomery county, containing 100 acres, gave to the plaintiffs, to whom he was justly indebted, for goods sold and delivered, a bond and warrant of attorney to secure the debt, being 1460 dollars, on which a judgment was entered up, and execution issued thereon, and the land, above…

THE bill, (filed June 13, 1818,) stated, that the plaintiff, on the first of January, 1807, purchased and took an assignment of a contract, made October 31, 1806, between William Thayer, and an agent of the Pulteney estate, for the purchase of lot No. 35, in township No, 13, in the third range of townships in the county of Ontario, containing 1481 acres of land, by which the agent covenanted to convey to T. the lot, in fee, on the payment of 371 dollars and 25 cents, in two…

<p>A person convicted and attainted of felony, and sentenced to imprisonment for life, prior to the 29th of March, 1799, is not civilly dead; and his estate was not, therefore, devested.</p>

THE bill, filed November 13, 1810, by JVDJJowl, and. Eleanor his wife, stated, that the wife was one of the children and heirs of Mary Charles, deceased. That on the 28th of April, 1795, the defendant borrowed of her 400 dollars, and gave his bond, payable on the first of September, 1797, and, as security for the payment, executed to her a mortgage on a lot of land in Albany. The mortgage, which contained a power of sale, was registered the 15th of July, 1813.

BILL for a writ of ne exeat, charging that the defendant is sued at law, as executor, on a bill of exchange, indorsed by the testator, and protested for non-acceptance and non-payment; and that the defendant threatens to go abroad, and that the debt will be endangered, &c.

THE bill stated, that on the 19th of September, 1815, ■ the defendants, Matthew Brown, jr., Thomas Mumford, Mussel Smith, Oliver Culver, John Mas tide, and Francis Brown, formed themselves into a company, for the purpose of manufacturing cotton goods; and on the 2d of October, 1835, filed their certificate, pursuant to the act of the 22d of March, 1811, by whicji they became a corporation, by the name of íC The Genesseé Manufacturing Company,” stating their capital to be…

<p>On filing a bill against the president and directors of an incorporated banking company, charging the defendants with a fraudulent abuse of their trust, in the election of directors, an injunction will not be granted, in limine, before the comihg in of the answers, to restrain the new directors, whose election was colourable in law, from the exercise of their powers, nor will commissioners or receivers be appointed to take charge of the affairs of the bank, there not being an impending mischief, irreparable in case of delay.</p>

THE bill contained charges of adultery, and of cruel and inhuman treatment, and the cause was at issue on an answer, without oath, to the whole bill.

THE bill was for an injunction to stay an action of ejectment, brought by the defendant against the plaintiff, B., to recover the possession of a piece of land, held by the plaintiff, B., under a deed from the plaintiff, S. The bill, also, prayed, that the defendant might be decreed to execute to the plaintiff, B., a release of all his right and claim to the land, or for a perpetual injunction against the prosecution of his claim, and for general relief.

THE plaintiff was divorced, a mensa et thoro, on a bill filed (May 27, 1816) by her against her husband, on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment; and the decree directed that the plaintiff should hold and enjoy all the estate, real .and personal, which she inherited from her father, or which she earned after her husband had abandoned her, and that she should have the custody of the children of the marriage; and that Elijah H., the Husband, should be perpetually enjoined…

AN original bill was filed by the heirs of S. JYicoll, against C. C. Roosevelt, Peter R. Ludlow and wife, for an account, on the 4th of April, 1812, to which Roosevelt filed his answer, on the 27th of August, 1812. No further proceeding was had in that suit, and Roosevelt died in February, 1814.

THE bill stated, among other things, that previous to tke firgt'day of December, 1819, a partnership existed between the plaintiffs, Edwards Robbins, of New- York, and Robert B. Muchall, of Birmingham, in Great Britain, under the firm of E. Robbins 8f Muchall, and was carried on by E. R. at the city of New-York, and by M. at Birmingham, which partnership expired, by its own limitation, on or about the first of December, 1819.

THE bill, filed the 27th of July, 1820, stated, among otjigr t]jjagS) the plaintiff, as widow of her first husband, Robert Ludlow, was entitled to dower in the real estate of which he died seised, on the 30th of March, 1798, being lands in Newburgh, and elsewhere.

THE bill, filed January 25, 1821, stated, that hi November, 1820, the defendants, M‘Donald and Franklin Livingston, caused a fi. fa. to be issued on a judgment obtained by them against the plaintiff, in Jlugust, 1819, for 483 dollars and 62 cents, which was delivered to the defendant, W. Griffith, as deputy of the Sheriff of the county of Saratoga, while the plaintiff was absent at the city of New-York.

<p>A defendant cannot plead or answer, and demur both to the whole bill, or the same part of a bill.</p>

THE plaintiff being owner of a lot of ground, at the corner of Rutger and Cherry-streets, in the city of Mew-York, leased it, on the first of May, 1799, to the defendant, for 2.4 years, at the yearly rent of forty-five pdimds, (112 dollars and 50 cents,) payable quarterly, with all the taxes, fce.

BILL, filed March 14th, 1821, for a specific performanee or an agreement for the exchange of certain lots m the village of Newburgh, for two farms, one in the town of Montgomery, and the other in the town of Wallhill, made the 14th of January, 1820, between the plaintiff and Thomas Ellison, now deceased. The defendant!)., was the son-in-law of T. E., and the other defendants were his infant children.

THIS cause cáme on to be heard on exceptions taken to the report of the master, allowing the exceptions taken to the answer of the defendant, accompanying the plea; and the further answer to the amended bill. (Vide Vol. V. p. 555. 569. S. C. and 20 Johns. Rep, 668. S. C. in error.)

JOHN TURNER, jun. father of Maria, wife of the pjajntjf|f Joseph Kirby, died in 1801, having first made a will, by which he devised all his estate, real and personal, to his wife, and his two children, Archibald and Maria, in fee, to be divided when his son A. should arrive at the age of 21 years; and appointed James Dunlap, and John Thompson5 his executors.

<p>On a rehearing, the cause is entirely open to the party in whose favour the decree has beep given; but as to the other party, it is open only as to the parts of the decree complained of by him.</p> <p>Evidence duly taken, in chief, but omitted to be read at the former hearing, through negligence, or other cause; or evidence as to new matter, not before ready, or as to papers since found, and which may be proved at the hearing, or evidence to show the incompetency of a witness whose deposition was read at the former hearing, is admissible at the rehearing.</p> <p>But new evidence, as to the merits, is not allowed at a rehearing, especially when it has been taken ex parte. ■</p> <p>A conveyance of land will not be directed, where the party, in whom the fee resided, is dead, and his heirs were not made parties.</p> <p>It rests in the sound discretion of the Court, to award a feigned issue or not; but where the truth of facts can be satisfactorily ascertained by the Court, without the aid of a jury, it is its duty to decide as to the facts, and not subject the parties to the expense and delay of a trial at law.</p>

DANIEL HALE, being seised of a house and lot in Albany, on the 8th of July, .1814, mortgaged the same to the defendant; but the plaintiff (then the wife of D. JET.) did not join in the mortgage. On the 24th of March, 1817, D. H. being largely indebted, released and conveyed the premises to the defendant, in fee, for the consideration, expressed in the deed, of 12,500 dollars.

THE bill was filed on the 3d of November, 1821,-against the defendants, Rosetta-Mark and Louis Marie, as executors of Jacob Mark, deceased, for an account of the estate of the testator, and charging the estate with advances made ,to the firm of Mark fy Speyer, of the city of ■New- York, of which Jacob Mark was a partner, and for responsibilities incurred for that house.

THE master, who, under the decretal order in this case, (vide ante, p. 183, S. C.) had proceeded to liquidate the amount of charges and costs against the estate of the testator, to be deducted from the fund under the control of the Court, prior to an apportionment among the creditors, reported, that in liquidating such costs and charges, a question had been raised on behalf of the representatives of Samuel JYicholl, who had obtained a report of a debt due to them in this…

BILL, filed February 8, 1822, stated, that William Radcliff, deceased, in his lifetime, together with John Radcliff, executed a bond, dated May 1, 1805, jointly and severally, to pay to the plaintiffs’ testator 500 dollars, at a day long since past. That W. R., at the time of his death, was seised of lands in Dutchess county, and of a considerable personal estate.

BILL to foreclose a mortgage, given on the 12th of May, 1819, to secure the payment of a bond, conditioned to pay 9026 dollars and 87 cents, on the 12th of May, 1820, with interest.

PETITION of the plaintiffs, who are executors, stating, that by the decree of the 4th day of April last, it was ordered, that the bill, as to the defendant, Burrows, he dismissed, with costs.

HENRY BAGLEY, on the 17th of August, 1808, mortgaged to the Loan Officers of Essex county, fifty acres of land, in the town of Crown Point, to secure a loan of seventy-four dollars, under the act of the 11th of April, 1808. The interest was regularly paid up to the first Tuesday of May, 1817.

PETITION of the plamtifi, stating, that interrogate)mes, on the part of the defendants, were served on the solicitor for the plaintiff, on the 19th of August last. That they referred to a vast number of exhibits and vouchers, copies of which were not served.

THE bill stated, that in August, 1818, Smith ¿y Soul» den, partners in trade, at Utica, were largely indebted to the defendants, some of whom resided in JYew-Yorh. and some in Albany, and to other persons residing in JVsw- York, and elsewhere, whose names were unknown to the plaintiffs, That the plaintiffs were partners, in the practice of the law, as attorneys and solicitors, at Utica, and were applied to by the defendant, W., and four others of the defendants, named, and…

C. F., and to the trial of that fact alone. The bill charged, that the defendant, since her marriage with the plaintiff, had “ committed adultery, at divers times, with William C. F., and others, to the plaintiff unknown.” And that on the first of April, 1816, at the house of the plaintiff, in Rensselaer county, the defendant committed adultery with the said W. C. F. That in May, and July, 1817, the defendant, at the house of the plaintiff, committed adultery with W. C. F.…

ARTHUR MAGILL, of Middletown, in the state of Connecticut, was owner of part of lot No. 15, in Leyden, in this state, containing 129 acres of land; and was assignee of a bond and a mortgage of land in Leyden, executed the 20th of October, 1804, by William JenJcs, one of the defendants.

THE plaintiff filed his bill on the 16th of December, 1818, against Moses White, executor, and Charlotte Hasen, executrix, of Moses Hazen, deceased, and Eddy TImrburs alleging, that Hazen,'at the time of his death, was indebted to him in above the sum of 5000 dollars, the balance of an unsettled account of dealings between them, from the 26th of July, 1783, to the time of Hazen’s death.

ON the 30th May, 1812, Stephen Sanford mortgaged lot No. 18, in the second ward, in Albany, to James Jordan, to secure the payment of 1000 dollars. On the third of January, 1815, a judgment was duly docketted in favour oí Joseph Palmer, against Sanford, for 14,013 dollars and 68 cents, and which became, a lien on lots 17 and 18, owned by Sanford, subject to the mortgage.

THE bill was filed, December 10, 1821, by Henry Champion, and William L. Storrs, and the administrators and heirs of John Paddock, deceased, against the defendants, John B. and Jacob B., for the specific performance of a contract, made the 29th of August, 1816, by which Henry C. and Lemuel Storrs, agreed to sell and convey to J. P. 952 acres of land, he., for the sum of 8000 dollars; 500 dollars to be paid in cash, and the residue in six equal annual instalments, with…

THE bill stated, that the plaintiff, an inhabitant of the state of Maryland, being seised, as a tenant in common, of certain lands in this state, appointed M. as his attorney, to take care of the land, and prevent trespasses, &c. and M. brought an action of trespass in the Court of C. P., of Alleghany county, in the name of the plaintiff, against one lAlby; but the other tenants in common, not being made plaintiffs, the attorney of the plaintiff, afterwards, suffered a…

THE defendant, Caleb Johnson, on the 24th of June, 1817, executed a bond and mortgage to James O. Wattles, to secure the payment of 12,000 dollars, in one and two years. The mortgage was registered the 17th of July, 1817. On the 2d of August, 1817, a judgment was docketted in favour of Wattles, against C. J., for 2000 dollars.

THE bill was filed by a second mortgagee, for a foreclosure and sale; and the.first and third mortgagees were made parties ; but they did not disclaim, nor was any release tendered by them, before suit. The third mortgagee now applied to have his costs paid i.o him, before the plaintiff was paid.

<p>BILL for a partition, taken pro confesso»</p>

BILL for an injunction, filed June 13th, 1822, The material facts were admitted in the answer. The plaintiffs, on the 23d and 27th of May last, sold at auction, to the defendant, Palmer, a quantity of goods¿ to be paid in approved indorsed notes at four and six months. It is the usage in JVcro- Yorlc, where goods are sold afanetion for approved notes, to deliver the goods to the buyer when called for, and to send for the notes afterwards.

BILL for an injunction to restrain the defendant from obstructing Vestry-street, in the city of JYew-Yorh, and averring that he was building a house upon that street, to the great injury of the plaintiffs, as owners of lots on and adjoining that street, and that Vestry-street has been laid out, regulated, and paved, for about twenty years.

ON the 4th of May, 1821, the petition of Mary M‘ Clean, of Hudson, was presented to the Court, stating, that her husband, Peter M'Clean, then was, and, for several years before, had been deprived of his reason, so as to be unfit to govern himself, or manage his affairs, and praying for a commission of lunacy. January 10, 1822. Application was made, in behalf of the lunatic, to discharge his committee, on the ground of his returned sanity.

BILL of interpleader, filed September 17tli, 1821, stating, that, on the 26th of June, 1821, the plaintiff purchased of the defendant, Salter, a cargo of coal, then on board of a vessel, at ten dollars per chaldron, amounting to 1125 dollars, payable in a note at thirty days. The coal was delivered to the plaintiff, who paid S. one hundred dollars on account.

BILL to foreclose a mortgage. The defendants, in their answer, stated, that they derived title to, and owned only two fifths of the mortgaged premises, by the will of their father, by which legacies were given to other persons, charged upon the whole mortgaged premises.

<p>PETITION, November 4th, by the defendant, for a rehearing; (seethe same case, ante, p. 1—10.) for the purpose of producing in proof a certain letter, from John P. Mumford, the intestate, which had not been made an exhibit, and read at the former hearing of the cause. The defendant, also, filed a cross-bill, praying, that the plaintiffs might discover the contents of that letter, or produce it. The plaintiffs answered the cross-bill. An order for a rehearing having been granted on the 5th of November, the cause was reheard on the 2d and 3d of December, when the petition, cross-bill, and answer, were read, and, also, an agreement, dated August 2d, 1809, and various other papers, which had been read in the suits of James V. Murray, against the defendant, J. I. Ciarle, he., and of Riggs and others, assignees of Robert Murray, against the same defendants and J. V. Murray; and the affidavit of the defendant, dated the 8th of December, 1817, and his several answers and petition of appeal in those causes.</p> <p>The material facts contained in these voluminous documents, are stated in the opinion delivered by the Court.</p> <p>December 21. The cause stood over for consideration until this day.</p>

THE first bill was filed, by R. alone, against the individual owners of the Hudson, or JYorth River steam-boats, previous to their incorporation, under the act of the 10th of March, 1830. B. was, afterwards, made a plaintiff, and Wiswall a defendant. The second bill was filed against the corporation. The facts were the same in both, and the answers were similar. The plaintiffs stated, that in May, or June, 1809, the plaintiff, R., was engaged, by the late Messrs.

THE bill, filed November, 1821, stated, that a judgment had been lately recovered in the Court of Common Pleas, of Suffolk county, against the plaintiff, in the names of The defendants appeared and answered.

THE defendants, being an incorporated company, for the purpose, among other things, of insuring against loss or damage by fire, on the 11th of December, 1818, appointed Henry P. Russell, residing at Savannah, in the state of Georgia, their “ surveyor of buildings and goods, offered to be insured in SavannahOn the 10th of February, 1819, R., of his own accord, and without any direction from the defendants, published an advertisement at S., stating, that insurance, by the…

THE bill stated, that the plaintiff was seised and possessed, by himself and his tenants, of a tract of land in the manor of Livingston, being part of great lot No. 4, in the town of Livingston, and lying to the north and west of Rule-ff Janse’s Kill. That he derived title by the will of his father; which he set forth, and the title, as far back as 1728.