Volume 8 — New Jersey Equity Reports

<p>Yhe bill was filed on the 12th day of September, 1845, by Robert H. McCurdy, and Herman D. Aldrich, of the city of New York, and William Spencer, of the city of Brooklyn, in the State of New York; and states that, on or about the sixteenth day of April, 1844, Thomas J. Agnew, of the city of New York, was seized, or pretended to be seized in fee of the lands and premises in the bill mentioned.</p> <p>That on the said sixteenth day of April, 1844, the said Thomas J. Agnew did execute and deliver to one Andrew Agnew, a certain bond or obligation in writing under his hand and seal, whereby he the said Thomas J. Agnew became bound unto the said Andrew Agnew in the penal sum of eight thousand dollars well and truly to be paid to the said Andrew Agnow, Ms certain, &e., which bond was conditioned for the payment of $4000, with interest at six per cent., on or before May 1, 1845.</p> <p>That the said Thomas J. Agnew, in order to secure the payment of the said sum of money, with the interest thereon in manner aforesaid, in and by a certain indenture of mortgage, bearing even date with the said bond, under his hand and seal duly made and executed, and for and in consideration of the further sum of fire shillings, the receipt whereof he did thereby acknowledge, did grant, bargain, sell, &e., unto the said Andrew Agnew, his heirs and assigns, all that certain lot of land being No. 7, situated, lying and being in the township of North Brunswick, in the county of Middlesex, on the southwest side of the new road to Cool Spring; (describing the premises); which mortgage contained a proviso that the same should be void on the payment of the said sum of $4000, with interest, according to the condition of the said bond.</p> <p>That on the 16th of April, 1844, the execution of the said indenture of mortgage was duly acknowledged by the said Thomas J. Agnew, before William H. Maxwell, one of the Commissioners, &c., then residing in the city of New York.</p> <p>And that the said mortgage was on the same day duly registered in the Clerk’s office of the county of Middlesex.</p> <p>That afterwards, to wit, on the twenty-third day of April, 1844, and while the said sum of money was still due and unpaid, the said Andrew Agnew, for and in consideration of the sum of four thousand dollars to Mm in hand paid by Elijah H. Kimball, of the city of New York aforesaid, by a certain writing of assignment under Ms hand and seal, did assign, transfer and set over unto the said Elijah H. Kimball the said bond and indenture of mortgage, and all the money due and to grow due thereon, and also all the estate, right and interest in and to the lands and premises therein and thereby granted and conveyed, to have and to hold the same to the said Elijah H. Kimball, his heirs and assigns forever, subject only to the proviso in the said indenture of mortgage mentioned.</p> <p>That afterwards, to wit, on the 24th day of September, 1844, and while the said sum of four thousand dollars still remained due and unpaid, the said Elijah H. Kimball, for a valuable consideration to him in hand paid by the complainants, by a certain writing of assignment under his hand and seal, did assign, transfer and set over unto the complainants the said bond and indenture of mortgage, and all the money due and to grow due thereon; and, also, all the estate, right and interest in and to the lands and premises therein and thereby gtanted and conveyed, to .have and to hold the same to the complainants, their heirs and assigns forever, subject only to the proviso in the said indenture of mortgage mentioned.</p> <p>That the whole of said principal sum, with a large amount of interest, is still due on the said bond and indenture of mortgage.</p> <p>That the said mortgaged premises have always been, since the date of the said indenture of mortgage, in the possession of the Said Thomas J. Agnew, or in the possession of some one holding or claiming under him, and that the said Thomas J. Agnew has at all times received, and still does receive, the rents, issues and profits thereof, to the entire exclusion of the complainants.</p> <p>The bill prays foreclosure; and a sale of the premises.</p> <p>,• On the 17th of December, 1846, the defendant filed and propounded to the complainants the following interrogatories:</p> <p>First: Interrogatory. Were you, or either of you, and which, on the first day of April, 1844, personally acquainted with Thomas J. Agnew, John Orville Taylor, or Andrew Agnew, or either of them, and if so, for how long ?</p> <p>2d. State whether prior to the said first day of April, 1844, you, as the firm of McCurdy, Aldrich & Spencer, had any dealings with the late firm of Agnew & Taylor, of the city of New York, and if so, its general nature and amount, as to goods sold, money lent, bills or notes accepted, endorsed or discounted ?</p> <p>3d. State whether since the first day of April, 1844, you have had any business transactions with the said late firm of Agnew & Taylor, and if so, the general nature and amount thereof?</p> <p>4th. State as near as you can the amount, if any, in which the' said late firm of Agnew & Taylor were indebted to you on the first day of April, 1844, and whether the same was due or owing on account, bill, note, or other negotiable paper, or is still due and owing, or how much thereof 1</p> <p>5th. State whether you ever inquired of Thomas J. Agnew, or Andrew Agnew, as to the validity of the bond and mortgage mentioned in the complainants’ bill, or of the amount due thereon, and if so, when and where 1</p> <p>6th. State what consideration, in money or otherwise, you gave or paid Elijah H. Kimball, of No tv York, for tbe. assignment of the bond and mortgage in the complainants’ bill mentioned to you, and whether all or any part, and what part of the said consideration, (if any,) remains unpaid or unsettled, and whether any other and what security is held therefor 1</p> <p>Yth. State whether or no, you have at any time sold, bargained, or delivered to the said John O. Taylor, or to the late firm of J. O. Taylor & Co., (of which the said John O. Taylor was a partner,) any goods, wares or merchandise, or advanced money'? and if so, whether the bond and mortgage in the complainants’ bill mentioned was, directly or indirectly, assigned, transferred or pledged as payment, or as collateral security for the same ? or if any notes, bills or drafts given therefor, or is in any way connected with, or held as payment, or part payment, or security, or satisfaction therefor 1 and if so, the amount and particulars thereof, and how much is now unpaid 1 and whether any other security, and what, is held therefor 1 State at large.</p> <p>On the 17th of December, 1846, the complainants filed the following answers to the interrogatories :</p> <p>The answers, joint and several, of the complainants to the interrogatories exhibited and submitted to them, by and on the part of the defendant.</p> <p>In answering the first interrogatory, exhibited and submitted to them, by and on the part of the said defendant, these complainants say that the complainant Robert H. McCurdy was personally acquainted with Thomas J. Agnew, and John Orville Taylor on the first day of April, in the year 1844, and had then known them about one year, but was not acquainted with Andrew Agnew. And that the complainants Herman jD. Aldrich and William Spencer were on the said first day of April personally acquainted with John Orville Taylor, and had known him then about three months, but was not either of them acquainted with either Thomas J. Agnew or Andrew Agnew.</p> <p>In answering the second interrogatory, these complainants say, that they, in the name and style of McCurdy, Aldrich & Spencer, and as such firm, prior to the first day of April, 1844, sold and delivered to the said firm of Agnew & Taylor divers bills of merchandise, amounting in the whole to the sum of |2,002.81, for which bills and amount the notes o£ the said firm of Agnew & Taylor were given; that these complainants had not prior to the said first of April had any other dealings or transactions with the said Agnew & Taylor, either as a firm or as individuals.</p> <p>In answering the third interrogatory, these complainants say, that since the first day of April, 1844, to wit, on the twenty-fifth day of April aforesaid, they discounted the note of Agnew & Taylor, at their request, for the sum of $195.13, payable six months after said date, and that they have had no other business transactions with the said firm of Agnew & Taylor since the Said first day of April, 1844.</p> <p>In answering the fourth interrogatory, these complainants say, that on the first day of April, 1844, the said firm of Agnew & Taylor were indebted to these complainants in the sum of $1165.T9 on their two prommissory notes, the one for $3T8.55, payable on the twenty-fifth of April, 1844; and the other for $T8T.24, payable on the eighteenth day of May, 1844, both of which have been paid.</p> <p>, In answering the fifth interrogatory, the complainants Herman 3). Aldrich and William Spencer say, that neither of them ever inquired of either Thomas J. Agnew or Andrew Agnew as to the- validity of the said bond and mortgage mentioned in the said bill of complaint, or as to the amount due thereon; and the said complainant Robert II. McCurdy says that he thinks he never made of either of them such inquiry.</p> <p>In answering the sixth interrogatory, the complainants say, that they never paid to Elijah H. Kimball, of New York, any consideration for the assignment to them of the said bond and mortgage</p> <p>In answering the seventh interrogatory, the complainants say, that from the thirtieth day of January, 1844, to the twenty-second day of May, 1844, they sold to John Orville Taylor goods and merchandise to the amount of $3,284.88; all of which amount has been paid; and that they sold and delivered, at divers times, between the twentieth day of July, 1844, and the seventh day of December, 1844, to J. O. Taylor & Co., [on credit, goods and merchandise to the amount of $7,974.57, for which last mentioned goods and merchandise the said J. O. Taylor & Co. gave their notes, and for the payment of which last mentioned notes the said J. O. Taylor & Co., or the said John O. Taylor in behalf of the said J. O. Taylor & Co., gave to these complainants as collateral security, before the delivery of the said goods and merchandise, and without which security said goods and merchandise would not have been delivered, different notes of hand given by other persons, and the bond and mortgage in question mentioned in the said hill of complaint; and they further say, that the said John Orville Taylor, at the time of offering to give to these complainants the said bond and mortgage, as collateral security, represented and said to them that the said bond and mortgage, which was then in the hands of the said Elijah H. Kimball, belonged to and was the property of him the said John O. Taylor ; that the said bond and mortgage bad been given by the said Thomas J. Agnew, (the defendant,) indirectly to him the said John Orville Taylor, to enable him the said John Orville Taylor to pay off and satisfy certain debts due from the then late firm of Agnew and Taylor, of which said last mentioned firm the said Thomas J. Agnew and the said John Orville Taylor were the only partners. And that the said John Orville Taylor further represented and said, that he had used the said bond and mortgage, and caused them to be transferred to the said Elijah H. Kimball, as security for money which he the said Kimball had advanced thereon to him the said Taylor, and which money, so raised, he the said John Orville Taylor had used to pay the aforesaid debts of the said firm of Agnew and Taylor. And the said John Orville Taylor further represented and said to these complainants, that he had repaid to the said Elijah H. Kimball the said money advanced as aforesaid to him by the said Kimball; and that he the said Kimball would, at the request of the said John Orville Taylor, assign and transfer the said bond and mortgage to them the said complainants, as security for the payment of Such goods and merchandise as the said complainants would sell and deliver to the said J. O. Taylor & Co. And they further say, that they the complainants accepted the said offer of the said John Orville Taylor, and at the request of the said John Orville Taylor, the said Elijah H. Kimball assigned and transfered the said bond and mortgage to these complainants, as security as aforesaid •, and these complainants, in consequence, sold and delivered to the said J. O. Taylor & Co. the goods and merchandise last mentioned, amounting in the whole to the sum of $7,974.57, as aforesaid. And these complainants further answer and say, that the sum of $5,140 still remains due and owing to them from the said J, O. Taylor & Co., on account of the goods and merchandise sold by them as last aforesaid to the said J. O. Taylor & Co. And that they still hold the said bond and mortgage as security for the payment of the said last mentioned sum, in connection with three prommissory notes, viz: one of Henry Bacon, for $115.65 cents, due February eighteenth, 1845, one of William H. Mills, for $490.11, due May eleventh, 1845, and one of E. P. Forsyths, for $279.85, due May twenty-fourth, 1845. And which said notes the complainants consider of little or no value, but which said notes and the said bond and mortgage are all the security which the complainants hold or have for the payment of the said sum of $5,140 aforesaid.</p> <p>State of New Jersey, ss : Robert H. McCurdy, Herman D. Aldrich and William Spencer, the foregoing complainants, being severally duly sworn, on their respective oaths say, that the fore-. going answers made to interrogatories exhibited and submitted to them by and on the part of tho above defendant, so far as they relate to matters and acts on their part as a firm, and so far as they relate to matters and things alleged to be or purporting to be within the knowledge of theso complainants, or either of them, are true. And so far as they relate to matters and things which they have learned from others, they believe them to be true.</p> <p>On the 17th of December, 1846, the defendant filed Ms answer to the bill.</p> <p>He admits that he did make, execute and deliver to Andrew Agnew, in said bill mentioned, a bond or obligation and indenture of mortgage, of such date and such purport as in the said bill is set forth; and that at the date and delivery thereof, this defendant was seized in fee simple of the lands and premises in the said indenture of mortgage and bill particularly described, and that the said indenture of mortgage was duly acknowledged by tbis defendant, and registered in the clerk’s office of tho county of Middlesex, at the time and in the manner set forth in the said bill of the complainants; and that the said Andrew Agnew, by an assignment under his hand and seal, of the date and purport in said bill set forth, did assign and transfer and set over to the said Elijah H. Kimball, in said bill mentioned, and his assigns, the aforesaid indenture of mortgage and bond : and that, as this defendant hath lately been informed and believes, tho said Elijah H. Kimball, by an assignment under Ms hand and seal, of the date set forth in said bill, and for the nominal consideration of one dollar, did assign, transfer and set over unto the said complainants the aforesaid bond and indenture of mortgage, and all the money due and to grow due thereon, and all the estate, right and interest of tho said Elijah H. Kimball in and to the lands and premises in said indenture of mortgage described. And he admits that, at the date of the said mortgage, this defendant was, and still is in the possession of the lands and premises therein described, and in the receipt of the rents, issues and profits thereof: But this defendairt expressly denies, that at the date of the above méntioned assignment of the said bond and mortgage, by the said Elijah H. Kimball to the said complainants, there was due or owing upon the same to the said Elijah H. Kimball the sum of $4000, mentioned in the condition of the said bond and indenture of mortgage, with the interest thereon, or any other sum of money whatever, or that there is now due or owing, or was at the filing of the complainants5 bill, to the said complainants on the said bond and mortgage, the aforesaid sum of $4000, with interest thereon, or any other sum whatever, but that the full and true consideration of the said bond and indenture of mortgage had before then been fully paid and satisfied, in manner and as hereinafter set forth, and that the said bond and mortgage ought in equity to be delivered up by the said complainants to the defendant to be can-celled, and that the same are now held and kept on foot by the said complainants through fraud and covin, against equity, and to the great detriment and injury of the defendant.</p> <p>He says that the said bond and moatgage were made and given by the defendant to the said Andrew Agnew, as collateral security to him for the making by him, at the request and for the accommodation of the defendant, of two prommissory notes, amounting together to the sum of $3200, and of the same date and amount, respectively, as the notes hereinafter mentioned and set forth, and payable to the order of the late firm of Agnew, Abbott & Co., of the city of New York, of which said firm the defendant was then a partner, and by means of which said prommissory notes, endorsed by the said firm, this defendant Was desirous of raising the said sum of $3200; that, this defendant finding it inconvenient or impracticable to negotiate the said notes, the same were thereupon retained by the said firm of Agnew, Abbott & Co., as security to them for two other prommissory notes, then drawn by the said firm of Agnew, Abbott & Co., at the request of this defendant, and for his accommodation, payable to the order of the said Andrew Agnew, the one dated New York, April first, 1844, at four months, for $1,640, the other dated New York, April 4th, 1844, at three months, for $1,560, and, which said last mentioned prommissory notes, at the request of the said defendant, were endorsed to and discounted or cashed by the Said Elijah H. Kimball, and as collateral security to the said Elijah H. Kimball for the payment of the said last mentioned notes, the said bond and mortgage, at the request of this defendant, were assigned and transferred by the said Andrew Agnew to the said Elijah H. Kimball, and were by him so held and received, and for no other purpose or consideration whatever ; and this defendant denies that at the making of the said bond and mortgage, or the delivery thereof, this defendant was indebted to the said Andrew Agnew in the sum of $4,000, or any other sum, or that the said bond and mortgage were given by this defendant to the said Andrew Agnew for any monies then actually advanced to this defendant, or owing by this defendant to the said Andrew Agnew, or for any other purpose or consideration other than as above stated and set forth.</p> <p>And this defendant, in further answering, says, that before the above mentioned assignment hy the said Elijah H. Kimball to the said complainants of the said bond and mortgage, the said last mentioned prommissory notes were taken up and paid by this defendant at the maturity thereof, or within a few days thereafter, and the said first mentioned prommissory notes of the said Andrew Agnew returned to him by the said firm of Agnew, Abbott & Co., and that thereby the said bond and mortgage became fully discharged and satisfied, and without consideration and inoperative against this defendant; the said Elijah H. Kim-ball having no other interest or control therein than to hold the same for this defendant, or re-transfer and deliver the same to said Andrew Agnew; and that this defendant always in fact believed and supposed, that the same had in fact been re-delivered to the said Andrew Agnew, until otherwise informed shortly before the filing of the bill in this cause; and this defendant, in in further answering says, that he is informed and believes that the said complainants gave or paid no money, or other value or consideration, for the assignment of the said bond and mortgage by the said Elijah H. Kimball; and that the said assignment was procured and devised by the said complainants fraudulently, without the knowledge or consent of this defendant, or of the said Andrew Agnew, and with full knowledge that the said bond and mortgage were held by the said Elijah H. Kimball as collateral security only for the payment of the above mentioned notes, and that the consideration thereof had been fully paid off and discharged ; and this defendant, in further answering, denies that the said complainants, or either of them, ever applied to this defendant for the payment of the said bond and mortgage, or' made any other application to this defendant in relation thereto, before the filing of their bill in this cause.</p> <p>The common replication was filed.</p> <p>The common rule to close testimony was filed by the complainants on the BOth March, 1847.</p> <p>The following depositions were taken on the part of the complainants :</p>

<p>The facts in this case are stated ante, vol. 8, page 167. No testimony was taken.</p>

<p>On an application to the Orphans’ Court for arc-settlement of the accounts of administrators, one of the grounds stated in the notice was, that the administrators had not charged themselves with all the monies they had received. On the hearing of the application, the applicants offered to prove by a witness that he paid to the adxnintrators two sums of money, and to produce receipts for moneys received by agents of the administrators. The Orphans’ Court refused to admit the testimony.</p> <p>The Prerogative Court, on appeal, decided that the evidence was admissible, and directed that the rejected testimony, and any other competent testimony to the same point, and also any farther testimony which the administrators might desire to put in for the purpose of overcoming it, be taken before one of Ps officers, and the appeal be thereupon brought to hearing.</p>

The hill, filed January 9th, 1845, states that an act of the Legislature, passed Feb. 16,1831, incorporated a company under the name of “ The Trenton Delaware Falls Company,” and authorized said Company to erect a wing dam in the Delaware river, between the month of the Assanpink and the head of Wells’s Falls, and a raceway along and near the hank of said river, in the neighborhood of Trenton, and to cut a main raceway from said wing dam to any point below the Trenton Falls,…

The hill, filed Nov. 19,1849, is for the foreclosure of a mortgage, dated February 24th, 1845, given by Obabiah Older and Margaret his wife, to Richard Vervalen, the complainant, of the equal and undivided one-half part of a stone quarry, lying at the edge of the Hudson river, and particularly described iu the bill, to secure tbe payment of a bond of tbe same date, executed by the said Obadiah Older to the complainant, in the penal sum of five hundred dollars, conditioned…

<p>At a Sheriff’s sale of land on execution, the crier, before the hammer was struck, received a sign which was intended as a bid, and which the crier understood as a bid, and would have received as a bid at any previous stage of the bidding, but which he refused to take as a bid on the ground that the half hour, expiring at a quarter past three o’clock, to which, by the instruction of the Sheriff, he had limited the time for bidding, had expired. The sale was set aside.</p>

<p>The bill, filed June 19, 1849, states that the complainants are pew-holders and members of the congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church of Rockaway, in the county of Hunterdon.</p> <p>The bill states the proceedings, under the act of June 12, 1799, by which the elders and deacons of, &c., were incorporated, by tbe name of u The Trustees of the Dutch Reformed Church of Rockaway, in the county of Hunterdon.”</p> <p>That on the 25th of June, 1807, an indenture was made be- . tween Abraham Van Horn, of, &c., of the one part, and Abraham Vandoren, Cornelius Wyckoff and William Van Horn, elders and deacons, &c., of the second part, by which Abraham Van Horn, in consideration of fifty cents, granted, bargained, sold, aliened and confirmed to the said A. V., and C. W. and Wm. V., elders and deacons, &c., and their successors, the lot of land in the . said indenture described, for the purpose of building a church, provided the lot be occupied for the purpose aforesaid, containing one-quarter of an acre; and all the estate, right, title, &c.; to have and to hold unto the said A. V., C. W. and W. V., elders and deacons, &c., and their successors, for the use of a church, to the only proper use, &c., of them the said, &c., and their successors forever, for the use of a church.</p> <p>That, as the complainants have been informed and believe, the said Rockaway congregation, on the execution and delivery of the said deed, proceeded to open their subscriptions, and to erect on the said lot a building for a church or place of worship, and did build thereon such a building for said purpose ; which was completed daring the year 1819 ; and that, on the 27th of April, 1819, a meeting of said congregation was held in said church, and articles to regulate the disposal and possession of the pews in said house entered into, agreed upon and adopted by them, as follows, (setting them forth.) The following are some of the articles, adopted at a meeting of the heads of families:</p> <p>Abt. 1. Resolved, That the congregation dispose of the pews in its house of public worship by public sale; that no pow be sold under its affixed valuation.</p> <p>2. That no person be allowed to purchase with Ms subscription money more than one pew; and that all moneys subscribed and paid towards erecting and completing this house of God go towards the payment of the pew purchased by the subscriber.</p> <p>8. That every person holding a pew shall pay to consistory such salary, &c., as he may feel able to subscribe; and if he shall neglect to pay for two years successively, the consistory may sell his pew and take the arrears of salary out of the proceeds, and return the surplus to the rightful owner of the pew; three months notice of sale to be given to the owner.</p> <p>4. That the pews shall be real and hereditary property, so that children and heirs may hold them as church property, by regular transfers so long as the property exists.</p> <p>5. That if the hereditary right to any pew shall become extinct, and said pew should not be transferred by its rightful owner, such pow shall revert to the consistory, who shall take charge of the same and dispose thereof as they may deem most beneficial to the interests of the congregation.</p> <p>8. That whenever repairs to the church become necessary, and no other means are at hand, the consistory shall have the power and right to assess the expenses on the pews, and the owners shall be held bound to pay the sums assessed; and, on refusal to pay, such assessment may be recovered in the same way as arrears of salary.</p> <p>9. The ownership of pews shall be determined by a certificate from the consistory and by their being registered in the church, records. The consistory, whenever payment shall have been made to them for a pew purchased, shall give a certificate, and shall cause such pew to be registered to the purchaser in a suitable record to be provided for that purpose; which certificate and registry shall invest the purchaser with the right of possession the same as if he had received a deed.</p> <p>11. Any of the foregoing articles or resolutions may, with the -consent of two-thirds of the congregation, be amended or repealed, or have others substituted or added to them.</p> <p>That the complainants purchased pews in said church, under and by virtue of said articles, as follows, (stating the pews ;) and that the same were registered in the church records, the said record commencing with the following words : “ The following persons have purchased the pews affixed to their respective names, as hereditary property in the Reformed Dutch Church of the Congregation of Rochaway ; which pews and the owners thereof are to be subject to the resolutions and articles adopted by the congregation, April 27,1819.”</p> <p>That the complainants received from the consistory of said church certificates of the ownership of their pews. The form of the certificate is as follows:</p> <p>“ This will certify that Cornelius W. Vaii Horn has purchased Pew No. 17 on the first floor of the Reformed Dutch Church at Rochaway, for $80, and, agreeably to an article in the regulations of said church, is entitled to the same as hereditary property in the same manner as if he had received a deed therefor.”</p> <p>That, by virtue of such purchase, the complainants entered upon and tooh possession of their respective pews, and have ever since possessed and occupied the same.</p> <p>That the complainants are informed and believe, that a meetr ing of the said congregation was held, a copy of the minutes whereof is as follows : “Agreeably to public notice given from the pulpit, a meeting of the congregation was held, in their house of worship, on Saturday the 28th of October, 1848. The Committee which had been appointed to procure subscriptions for the repairs of the church were called upon for their report; from which it appears that $253 had been subscribed for that object. It also appears, from statements made by members of that Committee, that the repairing of the church is a measure so unpopular, and so much opposed by the people of the congregation, that they were constrained to desist from their labors. The report of th.G building committee being called for, it was read and accepted, and the said committee discharged from any further action. Motion made and seconded, that the church bo left as it is. Motion lost. A motion was then made and seconded that the congregation build a new church on the hill. For the motion, 86 ; against it, 14 ; carried. It was then moved and seconded, that the following ho added to the articles regulating the disposal of the pews and church property, viz : { Resolved, That a majority of two-thirds of the congregation, have power to re-build or repair their house of worship, either upon its present or any other site.’ Motion carried without opposition. On motion, a building committee of five (naming them,) was appointed, to which was added the consistory of the church as a counseling committee. On motion, tho building committoo, with the consistory, were authorised, in their discretion, to obtain the sense of the congregation relative to the proposed object.” The said minutes remaining to this time unsigned by any of the officers or any officer of the church or said meeting.</p> <p>That the said meeting was the last meeting ever held by said congregation for the transaction of business, or any meeting whatever, except on the Sabbath for their usual worship.</p> <p>That the complainants are informed and believe that, on the 14th of tho present month of May, 1849, a certain contract was made and entered into by and between tho said building committee (naming them,) and five of the consistory of said church, (naming thorn,) of the one part, and Ebenezer B. Goltra, of the other part, (to which contract four of the consistory of the church would not consent, nor would they sign the same,) that said Goltra should proceed at once to orect a church for said congregation, on the hill, of tho dimensions in said contract specified; in consideration of which, the said parties of the first part, in addition to the sum in said contract specified to he paid by thorn to said Goltra, have conveyed to said Goltra, by said contract, the frame and wood work of tho said church of the Rockaway congregation; and have authorised and empowered the said Goltra to tear down, remove and destroy said building and convert the same to his own use; and said building committee have agreed and determined to take away and remove the stone-work or foundation of said church, and the stone wall enclosing the north side of the lot on which it stands, and tear down and remove all said stone-work immediately, and use the same in erecting the new church on the hill; and have given orders to their workmen to proceed to tear down said stone wall, stone-work and foundation of said church, and remove the same. And the said Goltra has also entered into the said arrangement to take down, remove and destroy the said church.</p> <p>The bill prays an injunction restraining the defendants from destroying, tearing down, removing, or committing any waste whatever on the building or church belonging to said congregation, or the wall enclosing the lot on which it stands.</p> <p>An injunction was granted as prayed.</p> <p>An answer was put in by the consistory and the building committee.</p> <p>They admit that, on the 14th May, 1849, a contract was made by and between “ The Trustees of the Dutch Reformed Church at Rockaway, in the county of Hunterdon,” of the one part, and Ebenezer B. Goltra, of the other part, for the purposes and to the end in the bill set forth; and admit that the said contract is signed by the Rev. Goyne Talmage, as President of the Corporation ; and by John Swackhamer and Adrian H. Pickel, as elders of the said church; and by Isaac Mesler and Thomas Jobs, as deacons of the said church ; but deny that the said contract is executed or signed by any of the said building committee; and deny that any of the members of said building committee or the said committee as a body are named in the said contract as parties thereto.</p> <p>They say that the church edifice was erected many years ago, and when the population was much less than it now is at that place and neighborhood, and when the demand and necessity for church accommodation was not so great as now. That the said edifice has but 44 pews on the floor which can be at the disposal of the congregation, and but 48 in all on the floor of the church. That there are but 26 pews in the gallery, which are not desiraHe for families, and are only occupied by transient persons and a few of the young people of the congregation.</p> <p>That it appears by the minutes of the particular synod of the Reformed Dutch Church, an ecclesiastical body to which the Dutch Reformed Church at Rockaway is amenable, and to which it makes report, that in May, 1849, there were in the cmxgregation of said church at Rockaway 102 families ; and these defendants aver that said report is correct 3 and that said edifice is entirely too small for the purposes of said church, and in other respects not such as tho interests of tho congregation and the welfare of the people demand 3 and that the congregation is not sufficiently large or opulent to authorize a division of the congregagation and the maintenance of two distinct establishments or organizations.</p> <p>They say thatc£ The Trustees &c.” is the corporate name of the religious society worshipping in said old edifice ; that said corporate body are connected with and amenable to the ££ Reformed Dutch Church of North America.” That the said ££ The Trustees &c. of Rockaway” have complied with all the provisions and requirements of the act entitled ££An act to incorporate trustees of religious societies,” passed June 12, 1799, and are fully invested with all the corporate rights conferred by said act and all supplements thereto, and all incidental rights growing thereout; and that the defendants Goyne Talmage, John Swackhamer, A. H. Pickel, Isaac Meslcr, Thomas Jobs, John Ryer, P. E. Voorhoes, P. C. Wyekhoff and John Klino compose tho consistory of said church at Rockaway 3 which consists, according to the constitution of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America, of tho minister, elders and deacons 3 and that they, as minister, elders and deacons of said church, are, according to tho 12th section of the act last aforesaid, the trustees or corporators of the said corporation known in law as ££ The trustees of the Dutch Reformed Church of Rockaway, in the county of Hunter-don ;” and that all the acts, deeds and undertakings laid to their charge in the bill have been done and undertaken, not in their individual capacity, but by their acting as trustees or corporators of the said corporation.</p> <p>They say that tho ecclesiastical assemblies of the Reformed Dutch Church of North America, to which the said church at Rockaway belongs, are, a consistory, which, by sec. 1 of Art. 2 of said Constitution, consists of the minister, elders and deacons of the church ; and which consistory has, as appears, as well by said Constitution as by sec. 12 of the Act of the Legislature passed June 12, 1799, the entire and exclusive management of the temporalities of the church; and that a majority of the consistory is a quorum and competent body for the transaction of all business; and the 4th sec. of the 2d Art. of the Constitution so declares. That among the items of business enumerated and specified in said Constitution as belonging to the consistory are the. calling of ministers, the building of churches, and whatever relates to the temporalities of the church.</p> <p>That the other ecclesiastical assemblies of said denomination next in importance are the “ Classis,” the Particular Synod and the General Synod. The answer states the powers of each.</p> <p>And the defendants aver, that neither the Classis, Particular Synod, General Synod or congregation have any control over the the temporal affairs of the several churches ; but that those are committed to the exclusive control and management of the consistory, both by the constitution of said church and the said Act of the Legislature of June 12, 1799.</p> <p>That it is not unusual for the consistories to consult and confer with the congregation, by which they are elected every two years, and with the Classis to which they belong; and that they are, not unfrequently, regulated in their action by their opinions; but deny that the action of the congregation, or any other bocly, is anything more than advisory.</p> <p>They say that the consistory of said church at Rockaway, at a meeting duly held in the church, on the 9th November, 1848, unanimously passed the following resolutions :</p> <p>u 1st. Resolved, by the consistory, that a lot of land be purchased suitable for a church lot, at, &c.</p> <p>a2d. Resolved, that this house of worship be re-built and placed upon the said lot of land.</p> <p>“ 3d. That the persons chosen by the congregation to be a building committee (naming them,) are approved of and appointed by this consistory as such.</p> <p>“ 4th. That the building committee be authorised to procure materials and contract for the building and completing of said house.</p> <p>“ 5th. That C. T. Sharp and G-. Hall be a committee to appraise and estimate the value of this church.”</p> <p>That the aforesaid consistory, at a meeting duly held by them since the filing of the bill in this cause, passed the following preamble and resolutions, (sotting them forth.) The preamble recites the filing of the bill in this cause. That the consistory believe they have acted in the premises according to the wishes of a large majority of the congregation, as will appear by the minutos and proceedings of the congregation held in the church on the 28th of October last; and that it is evident by an instrument in writing dated Oct. 28, 1848, that a large majority, viz. a majority of more than two-thirds of the original and legal pew holders in the present church or house of worship are in favor of re-building and moving the said house from the site whore it now stands, and placing it upon a lot, &c. And that consistory believes they have acted in conformity with the laws of this State and of the articles and constitution for the government of this church, and have been sustained and approved of by the Classis of New Brunswick, through a committee by them appointed, in all the proceedings had by this consistory in this matter, Therefore resolved, that Rev. G. T. and J. S. be a committee to protect and defend the rights and interests of this congregation against said complainant.</p> <p>The defendants say, that the contract with Goltra for the erection of a new church and the abandonment of the old, as referred to in the bill, was duly executed by a majority of the consistory ; and that John Ryer, one of the members of the consistory, has, since the expiration of said contract, signed a certificate, hereinafter set forth, signifying his approval of said contract.</p> <p>That the new church, so as aforesaid ordered to be built, lias been partially erected, the foundation being partly up ; and that they are impeded and embarrassed in further carrying on the work by being prevented from using the materials of the old church in the erection of the new.</p> <p>They say that four years ago it became apparent to the congregation that extensive repairs to and enlargement of the old church must be made or that a new church would be necessary. That, as early as January, 1844, a committee of the consistory was appointed to ascertain the expediency and expense of altering the church. That the subject was then talked of, and continued to be for two years or more ; but no decided action was taken. On the 1th January, 1841, the subject of the alteration and repair of the church was again brought forward ; when, in consideration of the importance of the subject and the absence of some of the members of the consistory, it was determined to call a' meeting of the consistory, and of a committee of the congregation which had been pi-eviously appointed, to confer and advise with the consistory in relation to the finances of the church. This committee was no more than a merely voluntary committee, without power, and not recognized in any manner by the constitution or regulations of the denomination with which said church was connected; and it has now ceased to exist. This meeting of the consistory and said committee was called for January 16,1841.</p> <p>On that day a meeting was accordingly held, and it was determined to re-model the church, when the subject was again dropped and suffered to die away.</p> <p>On the 2d September, 1848, a meeting of the congregation was called by the consistory, to consult on the propriety of surrendering to the Board of Domestic Missions of the Reformed Dutch Church the sum theretofore annually received by the said church at Rockaway. At this meeting of the congregation it was resolved, that a meeting of the congregation be called, two weeks from that day, to consider the re-modeling of the church.</p> <p>On the 16th September, 1848, the meeting was accordingly held, in the church, and a resolution was passed to build a neAV church, on the hill, in the same place where Goltra has now contracted to build said church. At this meeting a committee was appointed to raise money for the purpose of building the same. This committee did not raise means enough to render it safe for the consistory to proceed, and they did not act.</p> <p>On the 9th October, 1848, another meeting of the congregaion was held, when it was resolved that the church edifice was insufficient and incommodious, and that, as a congregation, they should proceed at once, either to make alterations in the old church or to build a new one. This resolution was passed almost unanimously; and a majority then present being in favor of an alteration of the old church, a committee was appointed to solicit subscriptions for that purpose ; but so unpopular had the measure become with tho congregation that the committee were unable to procure funds; and on the 28th October, 1848, tho proceedings were had by the congregation as are set out in the bill.</p> <p>They say that more than two-thirds of the heads of families have signed a certificate signifying their approval of the abandonment of the old church and the erection of a new one on the site selected; which certificate is as follows : “ Wo, the undersigned, do hereby certify that we are members of tho congregation that worship in the old church at Rockaway, and are in favor of the abandonment and disposal of said old church and tho erection of a new church, at the site selected, and where the corner-stone has recently been laid.” And that said certificate is signed by many others who are members of the congregation and are not heads of families, but who pay their portion of the salary. That this certificate is signed by all the persons who wore members of the consistory on the 9th November, 1848, when the resolution to build was passed, except Peter C. Wyckoff, and by five of the present consistory, exclusive of the minister.</p> <p>The defendants say there is also a subscription list for the purpose of raising money to erect the church, signed by 98 names, almost all of whom are members of the congregation, and have subscribed, in the aggregate, $1,570.</p> <p>That more than two-thirds of the legal pew-holders under and according to the articles in the bill set forth, adopted for the regulation of pews, have relinquished their interest in the pews of said church, by tho following release: a To the minister and consistory, &c., and to all whom it may concern: Whereas an effort is about being made to re-build and to move tho said house of worship from tho site where it now stands, and to place it upon, &c., therefore, to aid in the accomplishment of this object, we do relinquish and surrender up all the right and title to any pew which we or any of us hold in the said church. Witness &c., this 23d of October, 1848.”</p> <p>The defendants say that, excepting Goltra, they have done nothing in their individual capacity; hut have acted only by authority of the church. That the Classis have a superintending and advisory power over the affairs of the church, which power was exercised with reference to the matter of building the new church at Rockaway, as appears by the following report, made by a committee appointed by the Classis of New Brunswick, as follows, (setting it forth.)</p> <p>. .The report states that said committee unanimously agree — 1st. That there is a great want of room in the present house. 2d. That it would be unwise to try to repair or re-model the existing house; because it would only postpone the question of a new church, which must come up again within five years at farthest. 3d. That therefore a new house is desirable. 4th. The only remaining point is the location of the new edifice. If this question was now entirely new, the committee might hesitate in expressing an opinion; but since, at a meeting of the congregation, held after due notice, there was a vote of more than two-thirds (36 to 14) in favor of the site on the hill; since this has been actually bought by the consistory, and nearly $1,800 has been subscribed towards erecting a building there; and since it would make the church nearly equi-distant between the two villages of Mechanicsville and White House, we cannot but think it entitled to the preference. . They accordingly advise the church and congregation to act in accordance with these views. That the church can prosper, things remaining as they are, is manifestly out of the question. They therefore urge the consistory to go steadily forward, and press the new enterprise to completion at the earliest possible period. This report was dated April 26, 1849, and signed by the committee of the Classis.</p> <p>And “ The Trustees, &c.,” who in the bill are styled a The consistory of &c.,5’ further show, that the proceedings set out in this answer as their acts were done in a lawful manner, and were such as they insist they had a right to do; and that they have been and are still greatly annoyed and wronged by the proceedings of the complainants, who, in instituting said suit, are endeavoring to obstruct them in the lawful discharge of their duty, and are opposing the will of the ecclesiastical assemblies of the Reformed Dutch Church and the will of a large majority of the congregation.</p> <p>On this answer, a motion was made to dissolve the injunction.</p>

Thomas V .Johnson and John Y. Baldwin exhibited their Mil, stating that on the 30th of July, 1842, one Obadiah Wood-ruff died, seized of the lot of land and premises in the bill mentioned, leaving a will and codicil thereto, by which, among other things, he devised as follows : a I, Obadiah Woodruff, of, &c., do make and publish this codicil, &c., Whereas, under the fourth head of my said will, I devised and bequeathed, or intended to devise and bequeath, all the rest and…

A motion for a receiver was before made, and denied. See ante, vol. iii, p. 298. On the additional facts now presented, that L’Hommedieu, the trustee, had made a conveyance of the property to Edsall, and that L’Hommedieu vras insolvent, a motion was made for the removal of the trustee, and for the appointment of a new trustee or of a receiver.

On the 2d of October, 1847, Ruth Wright exhibited her bill, stating, that in and before October, 1828, she was living in the city of New York, and on tho 30th of that month was lawfully married, in said city of New York, to Asa Wright, then residing in the township and county of Bergen, in this State.

The bill, exhibited April 4,1849, states that, early in August, 1847, Edward A. Lines, the complainant, then residing and doing business in Chatham, Columbia county, New York, at the solicitation of Justin Spear, one of the defendants, then residing and doing business as a grocer in Newark, New Jersey, agreed with said Spear to enter into a co-partnership with him in said grocery business in Newark, and to put into said business $400 in cash; in consideration of which the…

On the 14th of March, 1848, Thomas Rogers, Morris Ketehum and Jasper Grosvener, partners, &c,, exhibited their bill, stating, that Andrew Parsons, being indebted to them in §304.65, did, in order to secure the payment thereof, make and deliver to them his note, dated June 29th, 1843, for the payment to thorn of said sum in ninety days, for value received, without defalcation or discount, and, as a further security for the payment of the same, did, on the same’ day and year,…

A second mortgagee had filed a bill .on his mortgage, making the prior mortgagee a party defendant; who put in an answer, setting forth his mortgage, and asking a decree &c. The mortgagor paid the complainant the amount of his mortgage ; and the complainant stopped in his proceedings, and a term had been lost.

<p>On tho 23d of June, I84Y, Phebe Vanderveer filed her bill, staling, that, on or about August 13th, 1836, Goold Hoyt, Russel H. Novins and Elisha Townsend, surviving obligees of Stephen Hoyt, obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of New Jersey, against Peter I. Stryker and Henry Vanderveer, for $30,000 of debt and $2T.82 costs. That on the 14th of August, 1836, a fi.fa. de bonis el terris was issued against Stryker and Vanderveer on the said judgment, directed to the Marshall of tho said district, returnable to the 5th of October, 1836; which writ was delivered to the said Marshal on tho 15th of August, 1836.</p> <p>That, by virtue of the said writ, the said Marshal, on the 24th of September, 1886, levied on tho following property of tho said P éter I. Stryker, to wit: one pair of horses, one wagon, a gig, one sulky, three cows, one yoke of oxen, one cart, two tables, two beds, one dozen chairs, two carpets, one mantel clock, and a lot of furniture. Also on the following real estate of the said defendant Peter I. Stryker: one house and lot about 60 feet front by 200 in depth, now in possession of Mrs. Vroom, situate on the main street in Somerville; a house and lot, supposed to be 40 feet by 200 feet, on Main street in Somerville, now in possession of G. Williamson; a house and lot in Somerville, about 35 feet by 200, in possession of I. Horton; a lot of land, 60 by 200 or thereabouts, on the main street in Somerville, on which the said defendant is erecting a brick house; subject to prior legal claims and incumbrances ; value one dollar.</p> <p>That on or about April 1st, 1848, the said Hoyt, Nevins & Townsend caused the said judgment to be revived by scire facias ; and, on or about April 1st, 1840, caused afi.fa. de lonis et terris to be issued and-delivered to the said Marshal, against the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the said Peter I. Stryker and Henry Vanderveer within his district, for the said debts and costs, and also for the further sum of $29.61, the costs of the proceedings on the scire facias ; which last fieri facias was returnable the first Tuesday of October, 1840. And the said Marshal, on that day, made return that by virtue of said writ he had taken and levied on goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the said Stryker and Vanderveer,. of the value of $5, which remained unsold. Therefore the said Marshal was commanded, that he expose for sale the goods and chattels, lands and tenements of the said Stryker and Vanderveer by him taken and levied upon-, and have the moneys &c., on the first Tuesday of April then next, to render &c.; and if not sufficient &e., then to make the residue from the lands and tenements whereof said Stryker and Vanderveer were seized on the 1st of April, 1838, or at any time after.</p> <p>That, by virtue of the said last mentioned fi-fa.f the said Marshal advertised and sold a certain house and lot of land of the said Peter I. Stryker in the village of Somerville, for $200; and that the balance of the said judgment, after deducting therefrom the said $200, is still due and unsatisfied.</p> <p>That, on or about June 15th, 1841, the said Hoyt, Nevins & Townsend, for a valuable consideration to them paid by the complainant, assigned to the complainant the said judgment and execution against the said Stryker and Vanderveer. That the said judgment still remains in full force and effect.</p> <p>That the complainant has reason to believe, and does believe, that the said Peter I. Stryker and Henry Vanderveer have equitable interests, things in action or other property, of the value of $100 and more, exclusive of all prior just claims thereon, which the complainant has been unable to discover and reach by execution on the said judgment.</p> <p>That she has been informed and believes, that the said Peter I. Stryker owned a number of shares of stock in the Washington Mining Company, and also in the Bridgewater Mining Co. or Bridgewater Mines, or has some interest or equitable right in said Companies or mines, or in one of them.</p> <p>That she has been informed and believes, that the said Peter 1. Stryker has some equitable interest in fifteen acres of land, situate in the township of Bridgewater, county of Somerset, and adjoining lands belonging to the Bridgewater and Washington Mining Companies’ land, John Herder’s land and the lands of John Polhemus and Cornelius Vanderveer, or adjoining the lands of some of them.</p> <p>That she is informed and believes, that the said Peter I. Stryker holds a bond and mortgage against one James W. Southard, for $4,000 or some other large sum, dated on or about May 14th, 1832, which is due and unpaid, and which the said Peter Í. Stryker is entitled to receive from the said Southard.</p> <p>That she is informed and believes, that the shid Peter I Stryker is the holder and owner of a prommissory note for $666.66, made by one John F. Brown, payable to said Peter I. Stryker, which is duo and unpaid.</p> <p>That she is informed and believes, that William C. Morris, Esq., of Belvidere, son-in-law of said Peter I. Stryker, holds in his hands the title to certain real estate in which the said Peter I. Stryker has some equitable interest, or other interest unknown to your orator. And that one John B. Camman, for the consideration of $6,500, conveyed to the said William C. Morris about 35 acres of land situate in said township of Bridgewater, the consideration of which was paid, in whole or in part, by the said Peter I. Stryker, and which said tract actually belongs to the said Peter I. Stryker, or in which he has some equitable interest.</p> <p>That she is informed and believes, that the said Peter I. Stryker entered into some contract or agreement with one Cornelius Waldron, of Middlesex, to purchase of him a certain tract of land i and that said Stryker paid to said Waldron $1000, or some other large sum, for or on account of the said purchase ; and that said Cornelius Waldron still holds the title to said land in trust for the said Peter I. Stryker, or in some other way, and that the said Peter I. Stryker, since the said purchase and payment as aforesaid, has commenced building a house on said land.</p> <p>That she is informed and believes, that said Peter I. Stryker is the owner of a number of shares of stock in the Newark Banking and Insurance Company, or in the Trenton Banking Company, or some other Banking Company.</p> <p>The complainant states, that said Stryker has some claim or demand, equitable or otherwise, against one Augustus F. Car-man, and that said A. F. Carman is indebted to said Stryker in some large sum of money. And that said Stryker owns or has some equitable or other interest in some furniture or personal property in the possession of the said Augustus F. Carman.</p> <p>That, as the complainant is informed and believes to be true, ■ the said Peter I. Stryker has a considerable amount of money deposited in or due from certain banks whose names are unknown to the complainant; and, also, that the said Stryker has a considerable amount of legal or equitable debts, claims or demands due to him, said Stryker, from different persons whose names are unknown to the complainant, consisting of books of account, due bills, drafts, checks, prommissory notes, bonds, mortgages, judgments or other securities or things in action, or that said Stryker has money or other personal property, either in possession or held in trust for him, the situation, value and particulars of which are unknown to the complainant. And that the complainplainant is fearful that said Stryker will make way with or place the same beyond the control of this Court or of a court of law.</p> <p>That the bill of complainant is not exhibited by collusion with said Stryker, or for the purpose of protecting his property or anjr part thereof against the claims of any other creditors ; but for the sole purpose of compelling payment of the money due upon the aforesaid judgment.</p> <p>That the complainant has reason to believe, and therefore charges, that said Stryker, at the time of the rendition of the said judgment, possessed, owned or had, or now possesses, owns or has some interest in some real estate, or chattels real, or in some personal property, in possession, reversion or remainder, or that he has some interest in some lease or leases, mortgage or mortgages, lien or lions on land, or leasehold estate of some name or kind; or that said Stryker is possessed of or entitled to some stock, public or private, in some hank or government fund, insurance company, mining company, or some other company or companies, chartered or unchartered ; or that he is partner or otherwise interested with some other person or persons in some business r partnership; or is interested in some property or thing or things in possession or action, of some kind,jin the stock of some hank or company in the city of Newark or some other place, hut of what place in particular the complainant is ignorant, and prays a full disclosure and discovery in the premises from the said Peter I. Stryker of all the particulars thereof.</p> <p>That the complainant believes and charges, that the said Peter I. Stryker had or owned, or now has or owns, some debt or debts due or owning to him from some person or persons in the U nitod States or elsewhere, or that he is interested in some demand or demands, claim or claims of some name or kind, on one or more person or persons, company or companies, government or governments, or that he is interested in some bills of exchange, prommissory note or notes, check or checks, certificate or certificates of stock or contract for the sale or purchase of stock, bond or bonds of some name or kind, or has some money or hank notes, or hills or notes of some kind or other which are intended to pass as money, hut of which, in particular, the complainant is ignorant: and prays from said Peter 1. Stryker a full disclosure and discovery in the premises of all the particulars thereof; or that there is or arc one or moro person or persons, unknown to the complainant, who hold some real or personal estate or property, or interest therein or something in action, in trust for the said Peter I. Stryker or for his benefit, or from some other person, by devise, grant, assignment, or in some other manner, of the particulars of which the complainant is ignorant; and prays from the said Peter I. Stryker a full disclosure and discovery in the premises.</p> <p>The bill prays a discovery of all the estate of every description, goods, chattels, money, stock, &c., &c., of the said defendants Peter I. Stryker and Henry Vanderveer, as well at the time of the rendition of the said judgment as until and at the filing of their answer, whether standing in their names, or that of either of them, or in the name of any other person or persons for or intrust for. them or either of them, either express or implied; and what disposition has been made of each of the same, and when, fully and particularly, and the amount and value of each of them, and the names and places of residence of the debtors, respectively, and the evidence of their indebtedness, and how much is due on each of the said demands, and which of them are good and collectable, and which are doubtful, and which are bad, and who has the custody or control of the said moneys, goods and chattels, book accounts, due bills, prommissory notes, bonds, mortgages, judgments, and other choses in action. And particularly whether the said Peter I. Stryker does not own, &c., &c., (as stated in the bill).</p> <p>And that a receiver of the money, property and things in action of the said Peter I. Stryker may be appointed; and that said Peter I. Stryker may be directed to assign, transfer and deliver to the receiver, upon oath, under the direction of a Master, all property, equitable interests, things in action, money and effects belonging to the said Peter I. Stryker, and all books and papers relating thereto, and evidences thereof, so that the complainant may have satisfaction of the sum due to her on the said judgment. And that tho said Peter I. Stryker may be injoined from collecting, receiving, selling, transferring, assigning, delivering or in any way using, controlling or interfering with, or disposing of, any debts or demands due to the said Peter I. Stryker, or any goods, wares, merchandise, account books, bills, drafts, checks, money, stocks, prommissory notes, bonds, mortgages, judgments, or other securities, things in action, property or effects, belonging to the said Peter I. Stryker, whether in his own name or hand, or in the name or lands of or hold by any person or persons for his use or benefit, or in trust for him, express or implied, until the further order of this Court. And that the said Peter I. Stryker may be injoined from confessing any judgment for the purpose of giving any other creditor a preference over the complainant, and from doing any other act to enable other creditors to obtain the property of the said Peter 1. Stryker which the complainant is unable to reach by execution; and for further relief.</p> <p>On the reading and filing of this bill an injunction was ordered, restraining Peter I. Stryker from selling, assigning or disposing of any debts due him, or any account books, bills, &c., &c., or other securities or things in action belonging to him, whether in his own name or hands or in the name or hands of or held by any other person or persons for his use or benefit, or in trust for him express or implied; and from confessing any judgment for the purpose of giving any other creditor a preference over the complainant, and from doing any other act to enable other creditors to obtain the property of said Stryker which the complainant is unable to reach by execution, until the further order of the Court.</p> <p>On the 21st of September, 1847, Peter I. Stryker put in a demurrer to the bill; showing for causes of demurrer, that it appears by the bill, that it is exhibited by the complainant against this defendant and Henry Vanderveer, under the act entitled iC A supplement toan act respecting the Court of Chancery,” to compel a discovery of property to satisfy a certain judgment in the said bill specified, being a judgment obtained by Goold Hoyt, Russell 11. Nevins and Elihu Townsend, against this defendant and said Henry Vanderveer, in the third Circuit of the United States for the district of Now Jersey ; and the complainant has no legal or equitable right to come into this Court under the said act, to compel a discovery and satisfaction of the said judgment. That the judgments referred to in the said act are judgments in the State Courts, and not judgments in the Federal Courts or any of them.</p> <p>That it appears by the bill, that Goold Hoyt, Russell H. Ncvins and Elihu Townsend were the plaintiffs in the said judgment and execution, satisfaction whereof is sought to be compelled by said bill, and that said complainant was not the plaintiff in said judgment or execution; and this defendant submits, that the complainant has no legal or equitable right to the discovery or relief prayed for in said bill.</p> <p>That it appears by the bill, that the personal and real estate of said Henry Vanderveer, the co-defendant in said judg- and execution, was levied on by the Marshal; and it is not alleged in said bill, nor does it appear, that such real or personal estate has been sold or in any way applied to the satisfaction of said judgment and execution; nor does it appear, or is it alleged, that the legal remedy of the plaintiffs in said judgment or execution, or of the said complainant has been exhausted.</p> <p>He also demurs to so much of the said bill as seeks a discovcovery of this defendant of any lands or real estate of this defendant for the purpose of satisfying the said judgment and execution.</p> <p>And the general cause of demurrer, that the bill shows no sufficient matter of equity to entitle the complainant to the relief sought by her bill against this defendant.</p>

On the 24th September, 1846, Barnabas T. Mulford and Margaret Ann, his wife, and Theodore Todd, exhibited their bill, stating, that William Todd, late of Somerset county, previous to April 1, 1841, was seized and possessed of certain tracts of land described in the bill.

The bill, filed April 11, 1849, stales, that the complainant for about 1G years past lias been, and still is seized and possessed of a farm 'within the bounds of the city of Newark, of about 40 acres, situate on the south side of the Passaic river and adjoining thereto, a short distance to the eastward of the compact part of the said city.

The hill, filed March 23d, 1846, states, that, on or before September 23d, 1836, Peter W, Barkelew was seized and possessed of certain lots, tracts and parcels of land described in tbe bill, the whole of said lands being of the value of |S,120.

The bill, filed June 20th, 1849, states, that on the 4th of July, 1835, John M. Vreeland gaye his bond, of that date, to Aaron A. Van Honton, conditioned for the payment of $777.19, in one year, with interest; and, to secure the payment of said bond, the said J. M. Vreeland executed to said Aaron a mortgage, of the same date, on thirty-five acres of land (described in the bill.) That, in 1840, John M. Vreeland died, leaving a will, and leaving his widow, Elizabeth, and five…

<p>On the 15th of November, 1849, Isaac Troth exhibited his bill, stating that he is seized of 96 acres of land, in tho township of Delaware, in tho county of Camden, of which he and those under whom he claims title have been in possession for one hundred and fifty years. That while said lands wore owned by Benjamin Morgan, under whom ho derives title, a public highway, called the great highway from Burlington to Salem, was laid through the farm then owned by said Morgan; which highway has been kept open and used as a public highway from that timo to the present. That said farm was, subsequently, either sold or divided, so that the portion of it lying on one side of said highway, and extending to the middle thereof, became the property of ono proprietor, and the other part, extending to the middle of the highway, became tho property of another proprietor 5 and the part therof now owned by the complainant is bounded on the middle of said highway for about one quarter of a mile. That there is on the said highway, and in front of complainant’s land, and in part erected thereon,,in the said highway, a stone bridge, which is necessasy for the use of the said highway.</p> <p>That, on the 28th of February, 1849, the Legislature of New Jersey passed an act entitled “ An Act to incorporate the Camden, Ellisburgh & Marlton Turnpike Company.” That by the 2d section of said act, it was enacted, " that the capital stock of said Company should be #80,000, with liberty to increase it to $60,000, and shall be divided into shares of $25 each; and that, when six hundred shares shall be subscribed for, the persons holding the same shall be, and they are hereby incorporated, by the name &c.; and by that name shall have, enjoy and exercise all the rights, powers and privileges appertaining to corporate bodies and necessary to carry the objects of this act into effect. That by the 11th section it is enacted, that it shall be lawful for the Company to construct a turnpike road from Marlton in the county of Burlington, through Ellisburgh, in the county of Camden, to the truss bridge over Cooper’s creek in the county of Camden; which turnpike road shall be constructed and made along the main public highway leading from Marlton aforesaid, and through Ellisburgh aforesaid, to the said truss bridge; and it shall be lawful for the said Company, by their officers, agents, &c., to enter, from time to time and at all times, upon all lands, for the purpose of searching for stone, gravel, sand, clay or other materials for the construction or use of said road; Provided, that before the said Company shall construct the said turnpike road along the said highway, they shall pay, to the respective owners of the lands over which the said highway now passes, all damages which the said owners will sustain by reason of the construction of said turnpike road. (A mode is provided for ascertaining these damages.)</p> <p>That by the 21st section it is enacted, that this act shall not take effect until the public highway upon which the said turnpike is authorized to be located and made is vacated as a public highway, according to law.</p> <p>The bill then states, that Thomas Evans, John McCurdy and others, ten or more freeholders of Burlington and Camden, applied to the Supreme Court in April, 1849, for the appointment of surveyors to view and vacate the said public highway, from the truss bridge to the junction thereof with the public highway leading from Marlton to the green tree tavern, in the township of Gresham. That the Supreme Court appointed surveyors of the said two counties to view said road and certify whether the same was necessary.- That, in the term of July, 1849, the said surveyors reported to the Supreme Court that the said road was ■unnecessary. That, at the same term, Ralph V. M. Cooper filed a caveat against the recording of the return of said surveyors ; and thereupon the said Court, at the same term, appointed three freeholders ox each of said counties (naming the freeholders) to view and certify as regards said road so vacated. That at the Sptember term 1849 of the Supremo Court, the said freeholders certified to the said Court that the vacating of the said road was necessary and useful; and the Supremo Court caused their return to ho recorded.</p> <p>The hill states that, before the said public highway was vacated, the commissioners under the said act of incorporation opened books for subscription to the stock of said Turnpike Company and, on the 21st of May, 1849, the stockholders proceeded to elect -directors. That, notwithstanding the said directors were elected previous to the vacating of said highway, yet they have employed an engineer and laborers, and are proceeding to form a turnpike road on the ground formerly occupied by said highway, and have caused their engineer and laborers to commence working on the land of Jacob Troth, in the formation of a turnpike road, on the ground formally occupied by said publie highway so vacated as aforesaid.</p> <p>That Charles Knight, one of the directors of said Turnpike Company, told the complainant, on or about November 6th, 1849, that they would show the complainant how soon they would go to work on complainant’s land, when they got commissioners appointed. That said Company, by their workmen, were at work on the land of said Jacob Troth, at a distance of only half a mile from complainant’s land, on the 8th of November, 1849; and that, according to the progress they have already made, they •would reach the complainant’s land in three or four days;.and that, according to the grade they have adopted, they will have to excavate the ground of complainant' in front of his house, and for a great distance through his land, to the depth of three feet, and will render the approach to his house very difficult, and in some places almost inaccessible with wagons and camagos, and will do serious injury to the premises of the complainant.</p> <p>That there is, on that part of the land of complainant formerly occupied by said highway vacated as aforesaid, a stone bridge which formed a part of the said highway, and was built, in part, on the land of complainant. And that, on the 8th of November, 1849, some masons came to his house and inquired if they could obtain board there while they would be working at the alteration of said bridge; and the complainant thereupon forbade them from disturbing the soil of the complainant and from altering said bridge; and, further, the complainant posted up, in conspicuous places, written notices forbidding the said Company, their agents, &c. from disturbing or excavating his soil, and from altering or interfering with said bridge.</p> <p>He charges that, notwithstanding said notice, the Company, by their agents, intend to enter upon the complainant’s land, and to excavate thereon, and to disturb his soil, and to alter the said bridge, and to convert his land into a turnpike road for the use of said Company.</p> <p>That he has been informed and believes, that the said Company intend to erect gates across said turnpike road, which they are now constructing on the land formerly occupied by the said public highway, so vacated as aforesaid, and to exact tolls from persons passing through said gates, according to the rates &c. ,* and that one of said gates is to be erected between the complainant’s land and Cooper’s bridge, so as to compel him to pay tolls for passing over his own land.</p> <p>That there were twelve bridges ort^ that part of said public highway which lay in the county of Camden, at the time the said highway was vacated as aforesaid. That the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the county of Camden, on the 19th March, 1849, passed a resolution agreeing to give to such turnpike companies within said county as should go into operation before January 1, 1851, all the county bridges, and material therein contained, which may be upon such roads as shall be turnpiked, without any charge therefor: Provided that, if said companies or any of them, shall not go into operation, or shall not continue in operation, then the county bridges upon such road so failing to go into operation shall revert to and become the property of the county; under which resolution tho said Turnpike Company pretend to own or set up a claim to tho said bridges.</p> <p>That that part of said public highway, vacated as aforesaid, which lies between the mouth of the Ellisburgh road and Cooper’s creek, was a part of the great road leading from Perth Am-boy to Salem, which was laid out more than one hundred and fifty years ago, and which, by the 36th section of the act entitled ci An act concerning roads,” is declared to be subject to the same laws and regulations to which other highways in this State are subject; and that the gate which the said Company intend to erect between complainant’s land and Cooper’s bridge will be placed on that part of said land which was a part of the great road from Perth Amboy to Salem; and by means of said gate tho said Company will compel the complainant and all others &c. to pay toll.</p> <p>Among the pretences charged are the following : a And sometimes tho said confederates pretend, that the soil and land on which is tho said main public highway from tho village of Marl-ton, through Ellisburgh, to the truss bridge belonged to the public, and that the Legislature of New Jersey had authority, and might by law give the said soil and land, after the public highway was vacated, to a private corporation for the purpose of making a turnpike road, and authorizing said corporation to take tolls thereon; tho contrary whereof the complainant charges to be true; and ho charges, substantially, that a highway is but an easement: and that, when it is vacated, the owner of the land oyer which it ran holds the land discharged from the easement.</p> <p>' That sometimes the confederates pretend, that tho Legislature of New Jersey have a right to tako private property, and to authorize a corporation to take it, for their private use, without the consent of the proprietor: the contrary whereof &o.</p> <p>And sometimes tho said confederates protend, that the said turnpike road which the said Turnpike Company are authorized to make is a public highway: the contrary whereof &c.</p> <p>And sometimes the said confederates pretend, that the authorizing tho said Turnpike Company to tako tho land of tho complainant for the purpose of making a turnpike road thereon, according to the provisions and restrictions of the said act to incorporate said Company, is taking the same for public and not for private use, and that the law authorizing them so to do is legal and constitutional: the contrary whereof &c.</p> <p>The bill prays, that the individuals therein named as defendants, and the said Company be restrained by injunction from constructing a turnpike road on the lands of the complainant, and from digging up and excavating his soil, and from altering or removing any of the said bridges, and from removing any of the materials of the same, and from erecting gates on the said road; and that the complainant may be quieted in his title to that part of his lands which was lately occupied by the said public highway which has been vacated; and that the defendants may be decreed to account to the complainant for all damages which they may have committed to the complainant’s property; and' for such other and further relief, &c.</p> <p>The injunction prayed was allowed, by Master Ewing.</p> <p>The defendants put in their joint and several answer, stating, (so far as it is necessary to be considered for the purpose of deciding the present motion,) that the stone bridge mentioned in the bill was erected by the Board of Chosen Freeholders of Gloucester, before the creation of Camden county; and that it is now in the county of Camden; that only about one-fourth of it lies within the boundaries of the complainant’s farm; and that the whole of said bridge is in and across the said highway, and makes a necessary part of it.</p> <p>They admit the act of incorporation as stated in the bill.</p> <p>They admit that the subscription books were opened, and that more than 600 shares were subscribed for; and that directors of said Turnpike Company were elected, and the Company organized before the said highway was vacated.</p> <p>They say that, after the vacating of the said road, they employed an engineer and laborers, and are proceeding to form a turnpike road on and along the said public highway as it was before being vacated as aforesaid, and are working on land of one Jacob Troth, at the distance of about one mile from the complainant’s land; but they say that their operations on the land of said Jacob Troth are with Ms consent; and that it is not now and never has been the intention of the Company, or of the directors thereof, to enter upon the land of the complainant to construct said turnpike road without his consent or until after lie shall be paid all damages which he will sustain by reason of the construction of said turnpike road ; and they say that, because the Company and the complainant could not agree upon the amount of said damages, the Company have applied to T. P. Carpenter, a Justice of the Supremo Court, &c.; and that he has fixed upon a time for the appointment of commissioners to ascertain said damages, and that notice thereof has been given according to the said act.</p> <p>They deny that the Company or directors eyer employed, authorized or directed the masons mentioned in the bill, or any other person, to tear down, alter or disturb the said bridge; or that it is their intention to do so until the complainant shall be paid Ms damages sustained by the construction of said road, or liis consent is obtained.</p> <p>They deny, that in the construction of the turnpike road they will excavate &c. as stated in the bill; but say that, by the grade they have adopted, the turnpike, when finished, will bo, opposite the complainant’s buildings, only one inch lower than the old highway; and that, in the opinion of the defendants, no serious, much less irreparable injury will be done to the complainant in constructing said road ; but that he will bo greatly benefited; but that, whatever the damages may be, the Company are fully able and willing to pay the same, as soon as they can be ascertained in the mode pointed out by the act.</p> <p>They deny any intention to erect gates until the road shall be completed; and say they are wholly unable to state at what particular places gates will then be erected; and say that they have no intention of compelling the complainant to pay any other than such tolls as are authorized by the act.</p> <p>They aver, that the highway so vacated was not a part of the great highway from Burlington to Salem.</p> <p>They deny that that part of said highway which lies between the mouth of the Ellisburgh road and Cooper’s creek was ever a part of the great road leading from Perth Amboy to Salem; and . they deny that the Company intend or have ever contemplated the erection of any toll gate on that part of said highway. •</p> <p>A motion was made to dissolve the injunction.</p>

The hill, filed March 23, 1847, states, that John Henry, the father of the complainant, on the 19th of November, 1825, made his will, whereby he gave and devised to the complainant, his only child, as follows: “ As to the residue of my estate, of whatever description, SC1 give the same to my executors, in trust, first, that the sum of $7,000 be set apart by my executors and appropriated to the maintenance and education of my infant daughter (the complainant) in the following…

This was an appeal from a decree of the Orphans’ Court of Essex county, made February 4,1849, establishing the will of Nancy Maxwell, and admitting the same to probate. The substance of the testimony on which the decree of the Orphans’ Court was made is as follows :

<p>A., by deed dated October 15, 1880, conveyed two acres of land to O.; and C. entered into and remained in possession thereof. On the 17th of January, 1885, A., by deed of that date, conveyed to T. a tract of land adjoining the two acres so conveyed to C.; and T. entered into and remained in possession. The deed to T. was prepared by B., an attorney at law, and was acknowledged before him as a Master in Chancery; and was recorded May 15,1818. On the 12th of January, 1817, T., under the advice of B., mortgaged the tract so conveyed to him to Y., since deceased; the mortgage being prepared by B. and acknowledged before him; B. acting as counsel for V. This mortgage was recorded February 28,1819. T., by deed dated February 10,1818, conveyed to W., subject to the said mortgage; which last mentioned deed was also prepared by B., and acknowledged before him. B., as an attorney at law, prosecuted a claim which D. held against A., and, on the 25th of May, 1817, recovered judgment in the Circuit Court of Essex county, which was docketed in the Supreme Court after the date of the deed to W., and caused an execution to be issued thereon out of the Supreme Court, and to be levied on all the said lands; the said B. and D. having full knowledge, before the recovery of the said judgment, that A. had conveyed the said lands as aforesaid. T., and the executors of Y., and W. and C. joined in a bill stating the above facts, and making B., and D., and the sheriff defendants, praying a perpetual injunction against the sale of the said lands by virtue of the said execution.</p> <p>On demurrer, it was held that C. was improperly joined as a complainant; but that W. and the executors of Y. were proper parties complainants.</p>

<p>Cross hill filed September 25th, 1849.</p> <p>Abraham Van Houten, the elder, by his will, first gives to-his wife, Rachel, if she survive him, the use of his farm and dwelling house where he then lived; all his farming utensils- and all his stock of said farm ; also his family of colored people,, together with his household and kitchen furniture which is notthereinafter disposed of otherwise, together with every article belonging to the same, as be the testator then occupied and enjoyed the same, until his son, Abraham Van Houten (his only-child) should arrive at the age of twenty-one years; and gives to his wife, Rachel, $800 a year out of his estate, during her natural life; all which he gives in lieu of dower. Pie then gives certain pecuniary legacies. He then gives, devises and bequeaths to his son, Abraham Van Houten, all the rest and residue of his estate, both real and personal, whatsoever, and wheresoever lying and being, of whatsoever description the same may be, excepting what is therein otherwise disposed of, to him and his heirs and assigns forever; and directs that his executors shall rent out all his property lying in Paterson and Hackensack, and all his houses and lots, at their discretion, for the benefit of bis son Abraham; and the proceeds arising therefrom, after deducting all necessary expenses and charges, together with his personal estate, consisting of money, bonds, notes, and mortgages bequeathed to his said son Abraham, to be put out to interest for the benefit of his son, by his executors, until he shall arrive at the age of twenty-ono years; and that his executors give unto his said son, Abraham Van Houten, out of his estate, a good college education, and a decent support until he shall arrive at the age of twenty-one years. Then follows this clause: ££but if my said son, Abraham Van Houten, should die, having no children, then my will is, and I do dispose of my property in the following manner, viz: I give unto the grand-children of my sister Elizabeth Van Riper, wife of Richard Van Riper, deceased, $1000, to be divided equally among them, share and share alike, to them and their heirs and assigns forever. Item, I give unto the children of my sister Caty Post, wifq of Adrian Post, $1000, to be equally divided among them, share and share alike, to them their heirs and assigns forever. Then I give unto the children of my sister Jane, wife of Henry Post, $1000, to be equally divided among them, share and share alike, to them their heirs and assigns forever. All the rest and residue of my estate, both real and personal, wheresoever and whatsoever description the same may be, I do give, devise and bequeath, one equal third part thereof unto my beloved wife Rachel, to her and to her heirs and assigns forever. Then I give, devise and bequeath one other equal third part thereof unto Leah, wife of Jacob Garretson, to her and her heirs and assigns forever. Item, I give, devise, and bequeath one other equal third part thereof unto the children of Caspar Wessels, deceased, to be-equally divided among them, share and share alike, to them', their heirs and assigns forever.</p> <p>The son attained twenty-one, and afterwards died without having had a child.</p> <p>The question was, whether the bequest and devise to the son did not become absolute and unqualified on his attaining twenty-one.</p>

On tlie 24th of August, 184C, Benjamin Fish, Charles G. Groen and George S. Green exhibited their bill,, stating that “ The Trenton Delaware Falls Company” was, by act of the Legislature, passed February 16,1831, incorporated, with power to cut a raceway and create a water power, in the manner specified in the said act, to be used for mills and manufacturing purposes.

Bill filed April 5th, 1847, stating, that on the 24th of March, 1795, Elizabeth Stevens, being seized in fee of a tract of 275 acres of land, (in the bill described), sold and conveyed the same, by warranty deed, to Jonathan Dickerson, the father of the complainant ; which deed was recorded February 6th, 1813.

Bill filed April 6,1841, to foreclose a mortgage, dated December 8, 1885, given by William C. H. Waddell, the defendant, to Ephraim Beach, the complainant, for $5,546.66, the consideration money for the lands therein mentioned, conveyed by said Beach to said Waddell, and to secure a bond also given therefor ; said sum to be paid in two equal payments, half on the 1st of April, 1837, and half on the 1st of April, 1838, with interest semi-annually; the mortgage being also…

On the 27tli November, 1822, tlie Legislature passed “An act for the incorporation of the town of Princetonby which it is provided: That… Held: and that was held on the 8th April, 1850, at the call of A. L. Martin, Clerk pro tern, of said Common Council; which said call did not show that it was made in pursuance of said above mentioned resolution ; and that it was not signed in the name of the Mayor, nor by the order of the Mayor, as neither the name of the Mayor nor the…

<p>R., in conveying to A. a vacant lot, of fifty feet, fronting on Hanover street, Trenton» described it in the deed as commencing 225 feet east from the corner of Montgomery street; and A., on the same day, gave a mortgage to R. on the lot by the same description. Afterwards, R. conveyed to C. a vacant lot of fifty feet, fronting on Hanover street, described in the deed as commencing 250 feet east from the corner of Montgomery street; thus oonveying to C. twenty-five feet of the fifty feet he had before conveyed to A. C. afterwards conveyed the western half of the lot described in the deed to him to McK., and McK. built a house on it; A. living in Trenton, and being aware that McK. was building on the said western half, and both supposing that A.’s lot of fifty feet lay west of the twenty-five”feet on which McK. was building. R. owned another vacant lot, of twenty-five feet, commencing 200 feet from the corner of Montgomery street, at the time of his said conveyance to A., and continued to own it at the time of the decision of the cause. A., after R.’s deed to him, gave to L. a mortgage on his lot, by the same description by which it was conveyed to him; which mortgage was assigned to J. O. P., the complainant, who exhibited his bill for foreclosure thereon, making R., the first mortgagee, a defendant. The testimony showed that the mistake was in the deed to A., and that A. intended to buy, and R. intended to convey to A. the two most westerly lots of R., of twenty-five feet each; and R., after the discovery of the mistake, had offered to correct it by conveying to A. his most westerly lot of twenty-five feet. The Chancellor directed that R.’s most westerly lot, commencing 200 feet east of Montgomery ptreet, be sold, and that R. give a deed for it to the purchaser; and that the next lot east of it, of twenty-five feet, be also sold, under the mortgage held by the complainant; and that the proceeds of both lots be applied to pay the mortgages,'in their order.</p>

Charles Hoyt exhibited his bill, stating that, in 1832, Ralph Smith died, intestate, seized of the lands described in the bill, leaving a 'widow, Susan P. Smith, and four daughters, to wit, Eleanor P. Lewis, wife of James Lewis, Jr., Adelia Smith, Anna Maria Hoyt, wife of Charles Hoyt, the complainant, and Charlotte S. Bradner, wife of William B. Bradner.

<p>The bill, exhibited April 13, 1850, states, that on the 1st of March, 1849, the Legislature of New Jersey passed an act entitled “ An act to incorporate the New Brunswick Gas Light Company;” and that by the said act John W. Stont, George A. Vroom and James Hoy, Jr., were appointed Commissioners for receiving subscriptions for $50,000, to constitute the capital .stock of tbe Company, in shares of $20 each; the said Commissioners, or a majority of them, to open the books for that purpose at such times and in such place or places in New Jersey as they should designate by a public advertisement to be publicly inserted for at least three weeks in a public newspaper printed in. the city of New Brunswick; and should continue the same open until the said capital stock should be subscribed, or, at their discretion, close the'same after they had remained open two days, and again open the same at some other time or times, place or places, giving public notice thereof as aforesaid; the sum of 5 per cent, on each share so subscribed to be paid in specie, or in bills of banks which redeemed their bills in specie, by each subscriber, at the time of subscription, to the said Commissioners ; each subscriber to be entitled to receive a certificate for such stock from the Commissioners; the amount so received by the Commissioners to be paid by them to the directors of said Company, to be appointed as in the said act afterwards directed; the powers of the Commissioners to cease and determine on the appointment of the Board of Directors; the said Board, when appointed, to have power, from time to time, to openfthe books for the further subscription of stock, until $50,000 should be subscribed.</p> <p>That it is provided by the said act, that the management of the concerns of the Company should be vested in five directors, to be selected from the stockholders; and that the directors should choose a president from among themselves; and that, as soon as conveniently might be after $15,000 should have been subscribed, the said commissioners should convene the said stockholders by public notice, to be given as aforesaid, to choose the first Board of Directors, who should hold their office until the first Monday in May, 1850; and that all elections should be by ballot of the stockholders or their proxies, allowing one vote for each share which they have held in his, her or their name or names at least fourteen days before the time of voting.</p> <p>That the said Commissioners, having given the notice aforesaid, opened, at the house of B. D. Stelle, in New Brunswick, on the (fifteenth) day of December 1849, books of subscription &c.; and that the complainant subscribed for 1250 shares, and paid the 5 per cent, on each share so subscribed by him, and received from the said Commissioners a receipt therefor.</p> <p>That the number of shares subscribed at that time, including those subscribed by the complainant, amounted to about 1600; and the said Commissioners thereupon gave notice, according to the said act, of a meeting of the stockholders, at the house of B. D. Stelle, in New Brunswick, on the 24th of January, 1850, for the purpose of choosing directors.</p> <p>That, at the time and place so advertised, the Commissioners attended, and opened the books of subscription, and some subscriptions were made, amounting, as the complainant has been, informed and believes, to 350 shares. And the Commissioners had fixed the hour of eleven in the forenoon, in their advertisement, as the hour when the election for directors should take place; and James Hoy, Jr., one of the Commissioners, shortly before the arrival of the said hour, said, in effect, that it was proper or necessary to close the book of subscription by a resolution, and then moved that the book of subscription be closed. That Joseph C. Potts, during this time, was sitting at the table on which the subscription book lay open, and, at or just before the time when said James Hoy, Jr., one of the Commissioners, moved to close the book of subscription, the said Joseph C. Potts subscribed, on said book, 1250 shares; and the complainant then offered to subscribe an additional number of shares; but this was objected to by the Commissioners, on the ground that the time fixed for closing the book had elapsed.</p> <p>That the complainant did not perceive or learn that the Commissioners required or received from the said Joseph C. Potts 5 per cent, on each share so subscribed by him.</p> <p>That the Commissioners, or one of them for himself and fellows, then declared that, as there was more stock subscribed than the charter called for, it was necessary to apportion the same; and thereupon they proceeded to make such apportionment by deducting from the subscriptions made by the complainant and the said Joseph C. Potts the whole of the excess. That the'complainant objected to the said proceedings of the Commissionersj and refused to receive from them the percentage on the shares so cast aside, as the whole proceeding was, in his judgment, .a violation of the act of incorporation, a disregard of his rights, and contrary to equity and 'good conscience.</p> <p>That the Commissioners then presented a list of the subscribers, with the number of shares or votes that each was entitled tó, and, in making such list, the complainant was named as only entitled to Y05 shares or votes, and not to 1250 shares or votes; and the Commissioners thereupon proceeded to the election of directors by the appointment of tellers to count the votes; and the complainant offered to vote'1250 shares or votes,, but was told by the tellers that, agreeably to the list handed to them by the Commissioners, the complainant was entitled to only T05 shares or votes; and. the complainant declined voting that number only, and presented to them a protest in writing, as follows: ££I, Frederick A. Van Dyke, a subscriber (&c.,) having subscribed the number of shares annexed to my name, claim the right and privilege of voting the full number of shares, one vote for each share subscribed by me. I do most respectfully protest against the right and power of the Commissioners to apportion the stock subscribed in the manner in which the same was done, and thereby cut down the number of shares and the number of votes to which I am entitled. If there are more shares, subscribed than the number provided for in the charter, I respectfully state it as my opinion, that an excess beyond the amount must' be entirely rejected, leaving the subscribers the whole number of shares by them subscribed according to the priority of subscription.”</p> <p>That the said tellers, on counting the votes, declared that-John Acken, Benjamin D. Stelle, David Bishop, George A. Vroom and Joseph C. Potts were elected directors of the said Company.</p> <p>That the said persons so declared directors have issued proposals for building gas works, (setting out the proposals). And the' said directors, as the complainant is informed and charges,, intend to lay out and expend, not only all the money so paid by the complainant and others, but what may he paid by the complainant and others on instalments that may hereafter bo called in on the shares subscribed, in the manner set forth in such proposals, and in the purchase of land and buildings, contrary to tho interest of the original subscribers, and in jeopardy of tho whole capital stock.</p> <p>Tho hill charges, that the Commissioners, or some of them, had an understanding with the said Potts, that the subscription book should be closed at 11 o’clock, at which time he was to have possession of the same and subscribe for such a number of shares as would give him a control in the selection of directors.</p> <p>Tho bill prays, that tho said directors, so appointed, may bo directed to stay further proceedings until the further order of the Court; that the proceedings of tho Commissioners be so far set aside as to restore the rights of the complainant; that the said election of directors be set aside, and the Commissioners be directed to hold an election for directors, upon the notice required by the charter, and at such election to receive the votes on the shares which were subscribed on the first opening of tbe subscription books, and such additional shares subsequently subscribed as would complete the number of shares contemplated by the act of incorporation, and to reject the excess from the shares subscribed by said Joseph C. Potts oh the closing of the book of subscription; and for such further and other relief &c.</p> <p>On the reading of the bill an injunction was allowed, restraining the directors so appointed from making or completing any contract which can or may lead to the expenditure of money, and if any contract has been made, from expending any further money on the same, and from doing any further act or thing which would involve the Company in expense.</p> <p>Subpena was prayed against tho said persons so appointed directors, and against the said Commissioners.</p> <p>Acken, Bishop, Stolle and Potts, four of tho persons so appointed directors, put in their joint and several answer.</p> <p>They admit the act of incorporation as set forth in the bill. That books of subscription were opened by the Commissioners at the time stated in the bill; and that the complainant then •subscribed for 1250 shares of the capital stock, and paid thereon 5 per cent., as required by the charter, and received a receipt for the same.</p> <p>They admit that the Commissioners called a meeting of the stockholders for the purpose of electing the first Board of Directors ; and that on that day Joseph C. Potts subscribed for 1250 shares of the stock. That the Commissioners made an apportionment of the stock, and allotted to the complainant and the said Potts 705 shares each; and that, at the election held that day, these defendants and George A. Vroom were elected directors.</p> <p>They admit that they have issued proposals for building gas works ; and say that they intend, in case they shall build such works, to expend so much of the money paid by the complainant and the other stockholders on the shares allotted to them, respectively, by the Commissioners, and of such instalments thereon as may be called in for that purpose, as will be required to purchase the necessary land and to erect the works contemplated by the act of incorporation.</p> <p>The defendants Acken, Bishop and Stelle say, that they have no knowledge of what took place at the House of said Stelle on the day the election of said directors was held, except as they have hereinbefore admitted.</p> <p>They deny all knowledge or information of an understanding between the said Joseph C. Potts and the Commissioners or any or either of them, that the subscription book should be closed at eleven o’clock, at which time the said Potts was to have possession of the same and subscribe for such a number of shares as would give him, the said Potts, the control of the election of directors, or of any other understanding between the Commissioners and the said Potts, or either of them, in relation to his taking any number of said shares, at any time or for any purpose.</p> <p>The defendant Potts, answering for himself, says, that he procured the passage of the law to incorporate the said Company, from the Legislature; and very soon thereafter visited New Brunswick, and continued his visits there from time to time, endeavoring, by conference with gentlemen residing in that place, to beget an interest in the subject of lighting that city with gas; that he spent both time and money in producing a movement amongst the inhabitants of that place in favor of the project; and, having at length succeeded in enlisting a number of persons in favor of the plan, the Commissioners proceeded to give the notice required by the charter, and to open the books for the subscription of the capital stock, as set forth in the bill.</p> <p>That this defendant was convinced that the success of the project depended very much upon the control and management of the works being in the hands of the capitalists and inhabitants of the said city; and that while he intended, from the first inception of the plan, to take some portion of the said stock as an investment, if any remained unsubscribed after all the residents of the place had made their subscriptions, he had no intention or desire to monopolize the stock, or seek through it to control the Company; and that, in conformity with this view, he did not attend at the opening of the books, nor on any subsequent day while they remained open, seek to subscribe for the stock, until the very last day on which they remained open, and until near the close of the last hour on that day.</p> <p>He further says, that soon after Duncan White and the complainant, both residents of Philadelphia, made their subscription for stock, whereby they attempted to monopolize a large majority of the stock and secure the control of the Company in the hands of the complainant, this defendant heard that complaints of dissatisfaction were expressed by nearly all the citizens of New Brunswick who had subscribed, and by several who had intended to subscribe; all supposing that the complainant was associated with a company of contractors to build gas works, and that the object of his largo subscription was, not merely for the purpose of legitimate investment, but for the purpose of obtaining undue control in the letting or contracting for the building of the works. And some of the citizens-of said city who had subscribed declared that they would forfeit what they had paid, but would pay no more ; while some who had intended to subscribe,, but had not, refused to do so. That, to prevent the failure of the project from this cause, he admits that he urged several friends of the project not to- abandon it, but to go forward, take some-stock, and await the result; and that several persons did so. And this defendant denies that -he had any understanding with any person that he should take any number of shares, or that he should take enough to control the Company, or in any way interfere with its control. And he alleges that he did not take enough of the shares to control the Company, nor has he at any time controlled or attempted to control it.</p> <p>The defendants Stout, Vroom and Hoy put in their joint and several answer.</p> <p>They admit the" act of incorporation, and that therein and thereby they were appointed Commissioners for receiving subscriptions (&c.)</p> <p>They admit the opening of the books for subscription, on the 15th of December, 1849, and that the complainant subscribed for 1250 shares, and paid the percentage and received the Commissioners’ receipt for the same.</p> <p>The defendants Vroom- and Stout say, that, besides the complainant, other persons, on that day, subscribed for 500 shares of said stock, arid paid 5 per cent on each share subscribed, partly in notes of specie paying banks, and a very considerable part' thereof in checks on such banks; all of which were, on the same day, • deposited as cash to the credit of these defendants, as Commissioners of said Company, in the State Bank at New Brunswick. That on that occasion one Duncan White subscribed for 100 shares of stock; that said White was an entire stranger to these defendants, and appeared to be known only by the complainant. That it was said, that the said White was a gentleman of fortune from Philadelphia, who had come to New Brunswick for the purpose of investing his money in the stock of said Company; all which information these defendants believe came from the complainant.</p> <p>That, 1500 shares of said stock having been subscribed, these defendants advertised, according (&c.,) that a meeting of stockholders would he held at Stolle’s hotel, in New Brunswick, on the 24th of January then next, at 11 A. M., to choose the first Board of Directors. That on that day these defendants attended at the place mentioned, about 10 o’clock, A. M., and, in the presence of the persons there assembled, again publicly opened* the books of subscription to the said stock. That thereupon subscriptions were soon after made by several persons, for 640 shares of said stock; on a large proportion of which 5 per cent, was paid to these defendants in checks on specie paying banks, and the residue in bank bills of suck banks.</p> <p>That, some timo before tho hour of 11 A. M., James Hoy, Jr., one of these defendants, remarked, that at the hour of 11 the books ought to be closed by a motion for that purpose, or, that it would be proper at that time that a motion should bo made to close tho books. That, some time afterwards, the said Hoy looked at his watch, and, remarking that it was 11 o’clock, moved that the hooks be closed. That these defendants decided that the time had arrived, and unanimously resolved to close the said books. That, a short time before 11 o’clock, but bow long before these defendants cannot accurately state, Joseph C. Potts, who had been sitting at the tabic whereon tho subscription book was lying tho most of the time while the commissioners were together on the said morning, took the said book and made a subscription therein for 1250 shares of said stock, as these defendants afterwards, on examining said book, ascertained. That, soon after said Potts had so subscribed, the complainant, took the book from the table, and, after examining it, requested of these defendants that he might he allowed to make a further subscription to the said stock. That these defendants informed the complainant that they had no power to receive further subscriptions, as the hour fixed in the advertisement for the election of directors had arrived, especially as there was already so much more stock subscribed than called for by tho charter. That tho complainant then asked, as a matter of courtesy to him, that he might he permitted, or have the privilege to subscribe for more stock; and the said Potts stating that, in such case, he should claim the same privilege, these defendants announced their determination not to receive any further subscriptions, and desired the persons present to withdraw from the room while they determined upon the mode of apportioning the said stock.</p> <p>That, there being 1090 shares of stock subscribed more than called for by the charter, and the charter making no provision for apportionment in such case, these defendants resolved to reduce rateably all subscriptions over 100 shares thereof, and did, accordingly, reduce rateably the stock so subscribed by the complainant and the said Potts as aforesaid, they being the only persons who had subscribed for more than 100 shares; and they allotted to the complainant and said Potts, each. T05 shares of said stock; and thereupon returned to said Potts 5 per cent, on each share so deducted from his original subscription, and tendered the same amount to the complainant, which he refused to receive.</p> <p>That in making the said apportionment of the said stock they acted in good faith, according to the best of their judgment, and for what they believed to be the best interests of the said Company under the circumstances of the case.</p> <p>That said Potts, at the time of making his said subscription, did not pay to these defendants 5 per cent, thereon, as required by the charter, but delivered to these defendants his check on one of the Trenton banks for the amount of said 5 per cent., which, together with other checks, and bank bills, that day paid to these defendants, on other stock subscribed for, was, on the same day, deposited in the State Bank at New Brunswick, as cash, to the credit of these defendants as Commissioners as aforesaid.</p> <p>That the payment so made by said Potts was made openly and publicly, and the check so given by him was laid upon the table, with other checks and bank bills received by these defendants, open to the inspection of every body; that the complainant might have seen and examined them at his pleasure, and might have had full information thereof upon inquiringof either of these defendants; and these defendants are entirely at a loss to know how the complainant can bo ignorant that said Potts made the payment as aforesaid, as well from the publicity with which the payment was made, as from the fact that the complainant, who took exception to the doings of these defendants, did not charge these defendants with colluding with the said Potts to give him the control of the stock of the said Company.</p> <p>That, after these defendants had apportioned the said stock as aforesaid, they appointed tellers or inspectors of the election for directors of said Company, and made out and furnished to them a list of the stockholders thereof, with the number of shares or yotos to which each was entitled; in which the complainant was set down as entitled to 705 shares. That, at the election afterwards held, the persons named in the bill were elected directors. That, at said election, the complainant offered to vote on 1250 shares ; and was told hy the tellers that, according to the list furnished them, he was entitled to 705 votes, and no more. That the complainant thereupon declined voting at all, and presented to the inspectors the protest sot forth in his bill of complaint. That no challenge or objection was made to any vote given at the said election; hut all who voted on that day voted the whole number of shares sot down opposite their names in the before mentioned list without challenge or question from any person.</p> <p>These defendants deny that they, or either of them, had any understanding with said Potts that the book of subscription should be closed at 11 o’clock, at which time said Potts was to have possession of the same and subscribe for such a number of shares as would give him a control in the selection of directors of said Company, or that they, or either of them, had any understanding whatever in relation to closing the said hooks at any hour, or in relation to the hooks being put in the possession of said Potts for the purpose of subscribing for any number of shares of said stock. And these defendants admit that they knew several persons intended to subscribe for some shares of said stock during that morning and they supposed that said Potts would be one of the number of 'those who would so subscribe.</p> <p>Motion to dissolve the injunction.</p>

To a bill for foreclosure, the defendant had filed a demurrer, which was overruled, and the defendant was ordered to answer in forty days. The answer not being filed in forty days, a decree pro con. was taken against the defendant, no answer being yet in. A few days after, an order was taken on the part of the defendant, without notice, giving the defendant leave to answer; the Court not being informed of the nature of the answer intended to he put in.

<p>A., by deed of assignment, dated July 7,1834, conveyed to B. real and personal property, in trust, after paying tbe expenses sf the trust, to pay, first, certain moneys he owed to B., and then certain debts he owed to other persons. B., after selling the trust estate, died, intestate, July S, 1846.' On the 1st of August, 1846, A. assigned all his interest in the trust to C , his son, who exhibited his bill against the administrator of B. for an account of the trust, and payment &c. The bill charged that A., after the execution of the trust deed to B., paid, out of his own money, in no way derived from the trust fund, several large items, stating them, of the said debt due from A. to B,, and, also, several of the debts to the other persons provided for in the trust deed to B.</p> <p>Held, That A. was an incompetent witness to prove such payments.</p> <p>The Chancellor, being satisfied from the evidence that nothing was due from B., in his life time, or from his estate, under or by virtue of the trust, refused to order an account, and dismissed the bill.</p>

<p>An administrator, on an application to the Orphans’ Court for an order to sell lands to pay debts, exhibited to the said Court only an account of the debts; and the said Court, on the same day, made an order for the sale of lands; and the administrator made sale, and made report of the sale, to the said Court; and on exceptions to the report of sale, the said Court confirmed the sale, and ordered that a deed be given. Held, on appeal, that the proceedings wore irregalar.</p> <p>Held, further, That the objection that the appellant did not proye, before the Orphans’ Court, that she was an heir at law, could not prevail on the appeal, the appellant, in the proceedings before the Orphans’ Court called a daughter of the decedent, having been permitted by that Court to file exceptions to the report of sale, and no objection having been made to the hearing of the exceptions on the ground that she had not proved herself to be an heir-at-law.</p>

<p>On bill to restrain waste by working a quarry, an injunction was allowed.</p> <p>An account for waste done is incidental to relief by injunction against future waste; and is directed on tlie principle of preventing multiplicity of suits.</p>

Bill filed. September 29, 1846, by Albert Cornell, stating that the complainant, being seized of certain real estate in South Brunswick, consisting of a farm of about-acres, and a lot of meadow land of about nine acres, and being indebted to Cornelius V. Pierson, the defendant, in $90, which he was unable to pay, the said defendant proposed to him that he should - convey to said defendant the said real estate, to secure the payment of the said $90, and that, upon the payment…

Tlio bill, filed March 17, 1847, states, that Isaac M. Wildrick, being seized in fee of the lands in the bill mentioned, and being indebted to George Wildrick in $616, executed to the said George a mortgage of- the said lands to secure the payment of the said sum.

The hill, filed September 18, 1850, states, that the complainants are seized in fee of a certain lot of land in the township of Van Vorst, in the County of Hudson, containing 4 88-100 acres, bounded on tbo south-west by a certain creek called Mill Creek; and that two of the complainants are seized of other lands lying contiguous to the first mentioned lot; upon which tracts of land the complainants, in partnership, carry on the business of man-ufacturing starch, and have…

<p>Samuel Haines, deceased^ by his will, bequeathed and devised as follows:</p> <p><c It is my will, and I do order and direct, that all my just debts and expenses be duly paid and satisfied, (by my Executors herein named,) out of the legacies bequeathed to my two sons, as. soon as conveniently can be after my decease.”</p> <p>He then bequeaths to his wife a home in his house, consisting of two rooms, with certain privileges.</p> <p>He also gives to his wife such household goods as she may select, previous to any appraisement of his personal property; and gives her an annuity of $50, to be paid to her by his son Charles, and an annuity of $70, to be paid to her by his son Isaac; which said sums are to be paid out of the devises of land's made by the will to his said sons; the bequests to his wife to be in li'eu of dower.</p> <p>He gives and devises to Charles the south-westerly part of his farm, by lines given by the will, with the buildings and improvements thereon, in fee, which south-westerly part contains 78 1-2 acres, subject to the payments and privileges, before mentioned, to his wife.</p> <p>He gives and devises to Isaae, the north-easterly part of the said farm, by the lines afóresaid, containing 82 acres, with the buildings and improvements thereon, in fee, subject to the payment of the said money before mentioned to his wife.</p> <p>He devises to his two sons, Charles and Isaac, each an undivided half of all his interest in a certain piece of cedar swamp, and the remaining part of a certain tract of pine land, after running off ten acres from the easterly end thereof, which he devises to his grandson, Samuel H. Roberts$ the whole tract containing 50 acres.</p> <p>He also devises unto Charles and Isaac a tract of timber land containing about 22 acres.</p> <p>He directs his Executors to sell all his interest in another tract of cedar swamp, and to give deeds therefor; and to sell all the residue of his personal property, after his wife shall have selected such goods, &c., as before stated; the proceeds of said sales to he added to his other personal estate, if any, to he divided and paid by the Executors as follows : $100 to his daughter Ann, wife of Samuel Shreve, and the residue to he equally divided between his daughter Ann and Samuel H. Roberts and Elizabeth, wife of Walter Knight, children of his daughter Hannah, deceased; the said Samuel and Elizabeth taking the half which his said daughter Hannah, deceased, would have been entitled to if living.</p> <p>And be appoints bis sons, Charles and Isaac, Executors of the will, “ under a belief and confidence that they will perform and execute the same in all things, according to the true intent and meaning thereof, to the best of their ability and understanding. The will was proved December 8, 1847.</p> <p>In October, 1849, the accounts of the Executors were presented to the Orphans’ Court of Camden County for settlement. The accounts, as presented, contained a credit to the Executors for commissions for settling the estate, on $8921,54, at 6 per cent — '§235,29; an,d struck the balance in the accountant’s hands, to be disposed of according to the will, at $3,328,02.</p> <p>Several exceptions were taken to the account before the Orphans’ Court; and,_ in February, 1850, that Court ordered the charge for commissions to be struck out, and allowed the accounts in all other respects. The accounts were restated according to this direction, and the balance in the hands of the Executors was found to be $3563,31.</p> <p>From this order of the Orphans’ Court the Executors appealed to this Court.</p> <p>No appeal was taken by the exceptants before the Orphans’ Court.</p> <p>The respondent, in his answer to the petition of appeal, states, that, at the hearing before the Orphans’ Court, the exceptants below offered Benjamin Buckman, Esq., who drew the will, and was, also, a subscribing witness thereto, as a witness to prove that the testator, by the words used in the will, meant and intended that his said sons and Executors should pay, out of the property given to them, besides paying the debts, not only the funeral expenses, but, also, all the expenses and charges incident to and attending the settlement of the estate ; and that the word “ funeral” was intentionally omitted, before the word “ expenses,” with a view of fully expressing such meaning and intention ; but that the Orphans’ Court refused to admit the evidence so offered.</p> <p>The respondent denies, that the allegation, in the petition of appeal, that the Executors were subjected to great expense and trouble, or either, in settling the estate, is true.</p> <p>And he says, that in the amount on which commissions were charged by the Executors are included $1131,36 due and owing from the appellants themselves to the estate, the sum of $230,36 due from, Samuel H. Roberts, one of the distributees, and the</p> <p>sum of $20,10 due from the respondent to the testator; which two last mentioned sums were merely deducted from the shares of - said two distributees.</p> <p>All the exceptions, except that which relates to the commissions, were arranged between the parties before the argument in the Prerogative Court.</p>

<p>Injunction allowed to prevent waste by a widow on the lands in her possession assigned to her for her dower.</p> <p>On a bill against a widow in possession of lands assigned to her for her dower, to stay waste, a decree pro confesso was taken, and an order of reference made to a Master to take an account of the waste done; the order directing, that notice of the time and place of proceeding before the Master be given to the defendant; which notice was served; but the defendant did not appear before the Master. The Master’s report was filed September 3, 1850. lío rule to confirm the report nisi was entered. On the 9th September, 1850, exceptions to the report were filed. At the December term, 1850, a motion was made, on the part of the complainants, to strike the exceptions from the files.</p> <p>Held, that when the order of reference, on a decree pro confesso, directs that notice of proceeding before the Master be given to the defendant, a rule to confirm the report of the Master nisi should be entered on the part of the complainant. Motion denied.</p> <p>Where a decree pro confesso is taken, and a reference to a Master ordered, and no notice to the defendant to attend the Master is necessary, and no rule to confirm his report nisi is required, (as by rule 4, article 14 of the rules,) if exceptions are filed to the report, it seems, that the complainant may set the cause down preparatory to further directions or to a final decree; and, if the exceptions be overruled, may get a final decree at the term at which the cause is so set down.</p>

<p>On the 25th of January, 1709, by a grant from Queen Anne, reciting that it will tend to the welfare of any people, and will be conducive to "the establishment of the true religion, and the promotion of piety and virtue, that all possible encouragement be given for the erecting and building of convenient places for the preaching of the word of God and administration of the Holy Sacraments, according to the doctrine and liturgy of the Church of England, and, also, that a sufficient maintenance be provided for an Orthodox clergyman to live and reside amongst them j and reciting that the “ Rev. Mr. John Talbot, minister of the Church of St. Mary’s, ■ in our town of Burlington,” Daniel Coxe, (and others, naming them,) have, by their petition to Col. Richard Ingoldesby, our Lieutenant Governor and Commander-in-Chief of our Province of New Jersey, desired that they might have our Royal grant and charter enabling them to act as a Body Corporate by the name of the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mary, in Burlington; and that they might have power to receive gifts, to purchase lands and houses, to make leases, and to make such rules and orders for the disposal of their Church’s affairs as will be agreeable to the laws and constitutions of our Kingdom of Great Britain: the said Queen willed, ordained, constituted, appointed and granted, that the Rev. Mr. John Talbot, Master of Arts, and the minister of our town of Burlington for the time being, Robert Wheeler and George Willis, Church, Wardens of our said Church, and the two Church Wardens for the time being, Col. Daniel Coxe, Lieut. Col. Hugh Huddy, two of our Council for our said Province, Jeremiah Bass, Esq., our Secretary of our said Province, Alexander Griffith, Esq., our Attorney-General, Thomas Revell, (and others, naming them,) and their successors to be elected in manner as is hereafter directed, be, and forever hereafter shall be one body politique and corporate, in deed and in name, by the name of the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of the Church of St. Mary, in Burlington, and them and their successors, by the same name, We do by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, make, ordain, constitute and declare one body politique and corporate, in deed and in name, to have community and succession perpetual, and that they and their successors, by that name, shall and may forever hereafter be persons able and .capable in the law to purchase, have', take, receive and enjoy, to them and their successors, messuages, lands, tenements, rents, liberties, privileges, jurisdictions, franchises and other hereditaments whatsoever, in fee and perpetuity, not to exceed the yearly value of ¿£300 sterling per annum; and also estates for lives or years, and all goods, chattels and things whatsoever, for the better support and maintenance of an Orthodox minister in the said Church and the promotion of piety and religion, and likewise the maintaining and keeping in good repair the fabrick of the said Church, and providing decent ornaments for the same ; as also full power to give, grant, bargain, sell and dispose of any of the said lands, either for term of years or in fee : Provided always, that such and so many lands of the full value of such as are sold be bona fide purchased and settled for the uses aforesaid ; and it gives to the said persons, and their successors forever, that, on Monday in Easter week, yearly, at some convenient place to bo by them appointed, of which notice shall be given by the minister on Easter day, between the hours of eight and twelve in the morning, to elect and choose, by majority of voices, two Church Wardens, and so many Vestrymen as shall be wanting to complete the number of twelve Vestrymen besides the two Church Wardens, out of the most substantial communicants of and in the said Church. It gives power to constitute, ordain and make any constitutions, laws, ordinances and statutes, not contrary to the laws of the kingdom of Great Britain and the present constitutions of the Church of England, and to make leases for their lives or 21 years, and also bargains, sales or grants in fee, upon the proviso aforesaid. And that “ our letters patents, or the inrolment thereof, shall be good, firm, valid and effectual in the law, according to ££ our Royal intentions herein before declared.” ££ In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patents, and our seal of our said Province of New Jersey to be hereunto affixed. Witness our trusty, &c., Richard Ingoldesby, Esq., our Lieut. Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over our said provinces of New Jersey and New York and all the territories and tracts of land depending thereon in America, and Vice Admiral of the same, &c., at Burlington, in our said Province of New Jersey, the twenty-fifth day of January, in , the eighth year of our reign, Anno Dom., 1709.</p> <p>££ J. Bass, Secretary.”</p> <p>On the 29th Oct., 1712, John Tatham, of New York, and Mary his wife, by an indenture between them, of the one part, and C£ his Excellency Robert Hunter, Esq., Captain-General and Governor in Chief of the provinces of New York and New Jersey and the territories depending on them in America, &c., and one of the members of the Right Honourable the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, of the other part,.for and in consideration of the sum of ¿£600 sterling to him the said John paid by the said Robert Hunter, granted, bargained, sold, enfeoffed, assigned and confirmed unto the said Robert Hunter, his heirs and assignees forever, all that certain tract of land at Burlington upon Delaware River, (describing it,) containing about fifteen acres; also all that lot called a water lot, (describing it) ; also a certain piece of meadow land, (describing it,) containing about ten acres; also, all that other two acres of meadow land, (describing it,) containing about two acres; together with the large mansion house upon the first mentioned tract of land, and other the houses, outhouses, &e. : To Have and to Hold" unto the said Robert Hunter, his heirs and assigns forever, to and for the sole and only proper use, benefit and behoof of the Right Honourable the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, and of their successors and assigns forever, and to no other use or uses whatsoever.</p> <p>On the 13th of April, 1803, by an Indenture between “The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts,” of the one part, and the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Saint Mary’s Ghurch, in the City of Burlington, in the State of New Jersey, of the other part, reciting, that the said party of the first part are seized in fee simple of the lots of land therein described (being the lots of land conveyed, as aforesaid, to Robert Hunter for their use); and that the lands and premises were originally designed by the said society for the support and maintenance of the Episcopal Church in the said city of Burlington ; but, since the separation of the Colonies from the Kingdom of Great Britain, have for the most part laid open and ■unproductive either to the said Society or to the said Episcopal Church; and that the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of the said Church have earnestly requested of the said Society to grant and convey the said premises to and for the use and maintenance of the said Episcopal Church in the city of Burlington ; the said Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, for and in consideration of the request aforesaid and of five shillings to the said society paid by the said Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen, did, “ according to their estate and interest in the premisos, and so far as they lawfully can ox may, but not further or otherwise,” grant, bargain, sell, enfeoff, &c., to the said Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen, and their successors and assigns, All, &c.: To Have and to Hold unto the said Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen, their successors and assigns forever, for the use and maintenance of the Episcopal Church in the city of Burlington aforesaid, and to and for no other use or uses whatsoever. And the said society for the propagation, &c., did by the said Indenture covenant and agree, to and with the said Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen, their successors and assigns, that they the said Minister, &e., their successors and assigns, should and might, at all times thereafter, have, hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the said premises, and the rents, issues, profits ana commodities thereof, without the let, suit, &c., of the said society for the propagation, &c.,. or their successors, or of any other person or persons whatsoever, anything having or lawfully claiming by, from or under them or any of them ; cc but it is hereby declared, agreed and understood, that nothing herein contained shall extend or be construed to extend to any warranty by the said society of the title or possession of or to the said premises herein conveyed or any part thereof.” “ In testimony whereof the said Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts have hereunto affixed their corporate seal, at the palace of- his Grace the Lord- Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, situate at Lambeth, in the County of Surrey, in England, the day and year first above written.”</p> <p>On the 15th of September, 1847, an agreement was entered into therein stated to be “ between the Minister, Church Wardens' and Vestrymen of- St. Mary’s Church, of the city of Burlington, in the State of New Jersey, party of the first part, and Samuel Wesley Stockton, of- the city of Philadelphia, party of the second part,” witnessing, that the said party of the first part, for the consideration of $18,000, to be paid as-thereinafter mentioned, covenanted and agreed with the said Stockton, his heirs and assigns, that the said party of the first part should and would, on or before Oct. 2d of said year, grant and convey to the said Stockton, his heirs and assigns, all that certain lot of ground (describing it); also all that lot (describing it); which comprises all the right, title and interest of the said party of the first-part in and to the ground within the above boundaries, excepting, nevertheless, to the owners of lots conveyed by the said party of the first part to Benjamin Shepherd and others the free use and privilege of fifteen feet wide alley running eastwardly from St. Mary’s street towards Tatham street, as laid out on a map made some years ago by the said party of the first part; and the aforesaid premises to be free and clear of all incumbrance ; the said Stockton, on the execution of said deed, to pay $3,000 and give his bonds and warrants and mortgages for the balance, &c., and that said Stockton, for himself, &c., promised and agreed with the said party of the first part, their successors and assigns, that on the execution of the deed as aforesaid he would pay the said $3,000 and give his bonds and mortgages as aforesaid, and also agreed to let the purchasers of lots No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 on Pearl street, sold this day at auction, have them at the price sold for on the terms and conditions named at the sale. And, for the performance of said covenants and agreements on the part of either party, the said party of the first part bind themselves, and their successors in office, unto the other party and their heirs, in the sum of $5,000, which sum, it is hereby agreed between the parties, shall be the stipulated damages to be paid by the party delinquent, to the other performing his or their part of the agreement, and now hereby agreed, fixed upon and stipulated as a liquidated satisfaction to be made and paid in case of the breach of this agreement by either party to the other performing.</p> <p>This agreement is signed by “ G. W. Doane, Rector of St. Mary’s Church,” with a seal affixed to his name, having a device on it, and by the said Stockton, with his seal affixed.</p> <p>An instrument is exhibited in the cause, dated September 30, 184T, “ Between the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mary’s Church, in the city of Burlington, in the State of New Jersey, party of the first part, and Samuel Wesley Stockton, of, &c., party of the second part,” witnessing that the said the Minister, &c., in consideration of $18,000 to them paid by the said Stockton, have granted, bargained, sold, &c., and do grant, bargain, sell, &c., unto the said Stockton, his heirs and assigns, all those certain lots, &c., being parts of two lots of ground which the Society, for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts conveyed to the said Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of Saint Mary’s Church, aforesaid, in fee, by deed dated April 13, 1803, and recorded on the 20th September, following, in the Clerk’s office of the County of Burlington, together with all the ways, waters and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and all the estate, right, title, interest, property, possession, claim and demand whatsoever of them the said Minister, &e.-, in law, equity, or otherwise howsoever, of, in and to the same and every part thereof; to Have and to Hold unto the Said Samuel Wesley Stockton, his heirs and assigns forever. And the said Minister, &c., for themselves and their successors, do covenant and agree to and with, &c., that at the time of the sealing and delivering hereof they were seized in their own right of an absolute and undefeasible estate in fee simple, of and in the said premises, and have good right, full power, and sufficient authority in the law, to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same to the said Stockton, his heirs and assigns forever, according to the true intent and meaning of these presents j and that it shall and may be lawful for' the said Stockton, his heirs and assigns, at all times, hereafter, forever, peaceably and quietly to Have, Hold and enjoy -the said premises, without the lawful let, suit, &c., of the said the Minister', &c., their successors or assigns, or of any other person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the same; and that the said the Minister, &c., all the said granted premises unto the said Stockton, his heirs and assigns, and against every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the same, will warrant and forever defend.</p> <p>In witness whereof the said the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mary’s Church, party hereto of the first part, by their President and Rector, George Washington Doane, hath hereunto set his hand and affixed the seal of said Corporation, the day and year first written.</p> <p>(Signed) G. W. Doane,</p> <p>With the same seal as that affixed to the agreement.</p> <p>Signed sealed and delivered ) in presence of j</p> <p>Franklin Woolman.</p> <p>The acknowledgement of the execution of the deed is as follows : On the 80th of September, 1847, before me Franklin Woolman, a Commissioner for taking the acknowledgment of deeds, personally appeared George W. Doane, known to me to be the President and Rector of the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mary’s Church, in the city of Burlington, who, I being satis- ‘ fied that the said “ the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mary’s Church, in the city of Burlington,” are the grantors named in the above Indenture, and the contents thereof having been by me first made known to him, acknowledged that he signed the said deed, caused the corporate seal of the said Corporation to be thereto affixed, and delivered the said deed as the voluntary act and deed of the said the Minister, Church Wardens and Vestrymen of St. Mary’s Church, in the city of Burlington, by authority and in execution of a resolution of the Vestry of said Church or Corporation him thereunto lawfully empowered for the uses and purposes therein mentioned.</p> <p>The only testimony in the case is, that Stockton did not attend at the time and place fixed for the delivery of the deed.</p> <p>The bill is filed to compel a specific performance by him of the said agreement.</p> <p>The defence set up by the answer is, that the complainants are not able to make a good title.</p>

The bill is for the foreclosure of a mortgage, dated May 9, 1849, given by Thomas Quinan to Richard Davis, for $50, with interest, payable May 1, 1850, assigned by Davis to the complainant. The bill states that, on the 20th of March, 1850, John Whit-taker, one of the defendants, recovered a judgment against Quinan, in the Common Pleas of Mercer, for $51.43 debt and $2.14 costs.

In March, 1849, Isaac S. Mulford exhibited his bill of foreclosure, on a mortgage, dated November IT, 184T, given by Thomas C. Williams.

<p>On a bill for alimony and maintenance, a motion for alimony pendente lite and counsel fee for complainant’s counsel may be denied, if tlie case as it appears at the time of the making of the motion shows that there is no foundation for the bill.</p>

On the 12th of May, 1848, Jane Clarkson, of the city of New Brunswick, in this State, died, leaving a will, dated October 5, 1843, by which, among other bequests, she bequeathed as follows : “I give and bequeath unto the New York Methodist Conference Society for the support of old worn out preachers the sum of three thousand dollars.” The bill is exhibited by “ The New York Annual Conference Ministers’ Mutual Assistance Society,” against the executors of the will of Jane…

<p>. H- (Red intestate, seized of real estate, leaving a grandson, the only child of a daughter who was the only child of the intestate, and leaving a widow and two sisters. The grandson died shortly after the death of the intestate, and without issue. The Orphans’ Court of a County, on the application of the sisters, made an order .appointing Commissioners to set off to the widow her dower. On Appeal to. the Ordinary, it was contended, that the lands descended to the father of the intestate’s grandson, or that, at least, the question of title was so doubtful that proceedings to set off dower should not be had until the title should be established at law. The order of the Orphans’ Court was affirmed.</p>

The petition of Samuel A. Allen, Administrator, &c., of Lewis Green, deceased, sheweth, that on the 5th of January, 1848, administration of the personal estate of Lewis W. Green was granted to Martin L. Green; who gave bond as Administrator, with WilliamSBasset and Caleb Lippincott as his sureties, in $2,000, for the faithful performance of his duties as Administrator.

<p>The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion delivered by the Court.</p>

<p>The bill prayed an injunction to prevent the defendant from building so as to shut up a window, in the gable end of the complainant’s house, which he stated to ho an ancient window. The complainant’s house was built on the line of his lot. Denied,</p>

On the 8th September, 1846, Henry Johnson gaye a mortgage to John Kipp on thirteen lots of land, payable in one year. On the 3d February, 1849, this mortgage was assigned to James Johnson, Sen., the complainant. On the 19th May, 1847, Henry Johnson gave a mortgage to A. V. Stout on lots 1 and 2 of the said thirteen lots, which was afterwards assigned to John N. Olcott; and, on the 29th May, 1847, Henry Johnson gave another mortgage on the said lots 1 and 2 to the said Olcott.

The bill, filed March 3, 1851, states the marriage between the complainant, (whose maiden name was E. B. Cumming,) and the defendant, on the 23d November, 1843. That they commenced housekeeping, at Beatty’s Town, Warren County, in May, 1844, and resided there until September, 1848, when they moved to Ilackottstown, in the same County.

On the 6th of September, 1847, a bill was filed by Charles G. Everitt, against John H. Hoagland and wife and Daniel Williamson, for the foreclosure of a mortgage, dated June 13, 1846, given by John H. Hoagland and his wife to Samuel Probasco, for $2000, payable in one year, with interest semi-annually, on five tracts of land, and assigned by Probasco to the complainant in July, 1847 ; of which assignment the bill says that Hoagland had immediate notice.

Bill filed June 20th, 1849, by Edo P. Merselis, stating, that, on the 4th of July, 1835, one John M. Vreeland, being indebted to one Asa A. Van Houten, in i$7**.19, gave to said A. A. Van Houten his bond, of that date, conditioned for the payment of said sum in one year, with interest.

<p>The Orphans’ Court of the County of Essex, on the 18th of October, 1850, admitted to probate a paper writing purporting to be the will of Lewis Tichenor, deceased, late of said County ; and ordered the larger portion of the costs to be paid by the caveator. ' ’</p> <p>On the hearing before that Court, Enos Tichenor, offered as a witness for the caveator, was rejected. ■</p> <p>The case comes before this Court on Appeal from the order admitting the will to probate, and the order in reference to costs, and the rejection of Enos Tichenor as a witness against the will.</p>

On a bill and information for an injunction, the Court directed notice of the application to be given to the defendants. On the day fixed for the hearing, the bill, and the affidavits in support of it, and the answer of the defendants, and affidavits in support of it were read.

Bennet Havens, late of the township of Wantage, in the county of Sussex, died, on the 23d day of December, 1845, leaving a will, dated July 12, 1830, by which, after directing his debts and funeral expenses to he paid, he gave to “ Thomas C. Ryerson, trustee of and in trust for his daughter Jane T. Havens, $35,000, to be paid to the said trustee, by his executors, within six months after his decease; and directed that the said trustee constantly keep the said sum of money at…

<p>The Orphans’ Court opened the accounts of administrators for the purpose of correcting a particular error alleged; and afterwards made an order as to that particular matter. This Court, on appeal from such order, will only aet as to that particular' matter; and will not open the accounts generally.</p>

The bill, filed April 3d, 1850, states, that in May, 1835, James B. Cox, the complainant, recovered against Asa C. Dun-ham a judgment in the Supreme Court, for §1,219.21 damages, ■and §40.78 costs.

Bill filed in March, 1847, stating, that, on the 29th of June, 1838, one Henry Speer recovered a judgment against Jeremiah Baldwin, the complainant, and one Henry Slough, in the Circuit Court of Essex, for the penal sum of f193.37, on a bond given by Slough and the complainant to the said Speer, with $29.44 costs. 'That on the 27 th of June, 1839, a fi.fa. de bonis et terris was issued thereon and levied on a certain' dwelling-house and lot of land in Canal street, Newark,…

<p>On a promise, by A., in consideration of receiving a deed for land from B., to pay O. a certain sum on the death of B., a suit at law seems to be the proper remedy of 0-If it be a trust, it is an express trust, and a writing showing it would be necessary.</p> <p>Semble: that if the object of B. was, to provide means for C. in such way that he could not squander them and his creditors could not reach them, C. could not enforce the payment to him; for that would defeat the grantor’s object.</p>

<p>A deed from A., of the first part, to B. & O. in trust for the use of D., her heirs and assigns, of the second part, witnessed, that the party of the first part, in consideration of $300, to him paid by the party of the second part, granted, &c., unto the party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, certain land: To hold unto the . said party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of them the said party of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. And A. covenanted to and with B. & C. in trust for D., her heirs and assigns, party of the second part, that he was seized, &c.</p> <p>Another deed from A., of the first part, and B. & O. in trust for the use of D., party of the second part, witnessed, that the party of the first part, in consideration of (&c.,) to him paid by the party of the second part, granted, &e., unto the party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, certain other land: To Have and to Held unto the party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of them the said party of the second part, their heirs and assigns forever. And A. covenanted to and with the said B. & O. in trust for the said D., party of the second part, their heirs and assigns, that he was seized, &c.</p> <p>Held: that these deeds gave a legal estate in fee, in trust for D. in fee.</p>

The bill, filed October 8th, 1849, states, that on the 3d March, 1845, Stacy G. Potts filed his bill against “ The New England Manufacturing Company,” setting out, that, on the 22d October, 1846, the said Manufacturing Company were indebted to said Potts in $16,398.01, and, to secure the payment thereof, executed and delivered to said Potts a bond of that date, conditioned for the payment of said sum as follows : $5,396.15 in six months; $5,448.44 in eight months ; $5,553.32…

<p>F., by will, gave one-fourth of his personal estate to Q., in trust for P.’s granddaughter, M. F., a daughter of Q., to be paid to her by the said Q. as her necessities might require. The amount of the trust fund received by Q. was $2,094. Q. bought a house and lot, for $2,500, and took a deed for it to himself; and M. F. aud her family lived in it three years, with Q.’s permission, aud without paying him rent. During the time Q. expended $500 in repairing the house. After M. F. aud her family left the house, Q. expended $522 more iu repair. After the death of F., Q. sold the property for $3,000. Q. rendered a trust account based on tbe principle of charging the trust fund with the loss consequent upon the purchase of the said property.</p> <p>HM; that he was not entitled to do so.</p> <p>: that, on the death of M. P., the said trust fund belonged to her children.</p>

This cause was decided at the December term, 1848. Bill, filed May 14,1847, by William H. Van Wagenen and Anthony Yeoman, against John Coe and others, to foreclose a mortgage, dated April 28, 1846, made by John Coe and Catharine his wife, to the complainants, on two lots in the bill discribed, one containing 73 14-100 acres, and the other, 14 37-100 acres, situated in the County of Passaic, to secure the sum of §822.87; which mortgage was acknowledged, on the day of its…

<p>The facts of the case, and the decree of the Chancellor, are reported ante page 66.</p>

<p>The ease in Chancery is reported ante, page 684.</p>

The Chancellor, on answer, dissolved the injunction granted on the reading of the bill, on the ground that the remedy at law was adequate; and gave no opinion on the questions involved as to the respective powers of the complainants and the Mayor, &c., of Jersey City. The order dissolving the injunction was appealed from.

<p>On appeal from an order of the Chancellor dissolving an injunction, the Court of Appeals will usually make an order in the nature of a temporary injunction, retaining the parties and the subject matter in statu quo until the final hearing of the appeal, when the whole matter in controversy is the continuance of tho injunction, as on a pure injunction hill, or when it appears that such an order is necessary to prevent great and irreparable mischief to the rights of the appellant.</p> <p>The appellant was the purchaser, and in possession of certain real estate, having paid $1,500 on account of the purchase money. The property was afterwards sold upon a decree of foreclosure of a mortgage previously given by the vendor. The purchaser at the sheriff’s sale under the mortgage brought ejectment. The party in possession, on a bill for the recovery, out of the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale, after satisfying tho mortgage, of the said $1,500, obtained an injunction restraining further proceedings in the ejectment; and the injunction was, on answer, subsequently dissolved by tho Chancellor. On appeal from tho order of dissolution, the Court of Appeals denied a motion for an order to revive and continue the injunction until the hearing of the appeal.</p>

<p>Tho cestui que trust of land, the trust being for his own benefit, cannot invest Ms individual property by building on the land, and thus create a trust in his own favor of Ms individual property, to the prejudice of Ms creditors.</p>

<p>This case, and the proceedings thereon in the Court of Chancery, are reported ante, page 9.</p>

<p>• The proceedings in this case in the Court of Chancery are reported ante, page 856.</p>

<p>The ease in Chancery is reported ante, page 272.</p>

<p>The case in Chancery is reported ante, 127.</p>

<p>The case in Chancery is reported ante, page 626.</p>

<p>The general rule is, that a suit brought for the purpose of compelling the ministerial officers or agents of a private corporation to account, or for misconduct, must be in the name of the corporation itself, and cannot be maintained in the name of an individual stockholder.</p> <p>In special cases, however, where justice cannot be otherwise obtained, and where the directors, officers and managers having the control of the corporation and its affairs are guilty of misconduct that amounts to a breach of trust, it will be permitted.</p> <p>What is not such a special case ?</p> <p>A settled account will be decreed conclusive between the parties, unless some fraud, mistake, omission or inaccuracy is shown; and in cases of settled accounts the Court will not, generally, open the account, but will, at most, only grant liberty to surcharge and falsify, unless in cases of apparent fraud.</p> <p>In order to make an account a stated account, it is not necessary that it be signed by the parlies.</p> <p>Between merchants at home, an account which has been presented, and no objection made thereto after the lapse of several posts, is treated, under ordinary circumstances, as being, by acquiescence, a stated account.</p> <p>Where a complainant files a bill for a general account, and the defendant sets forth a stated one, the complainant must amend his bill, because a stated account is prima facie a bar, until the particular errors in it are assigned.</p> <p>If parties dealing with commission merchants agree that rests shall be made quarterly, such a mode of stating accounts and calculating interest is not usurious.</p>

In the Court of Chancery, on a bill filed by the persons above named as respondents, against David S. Craig, surviving executor of the will of John Terrill, deceased, the above mamed appellant, an interlocutory decree was made, declaring, that the complainants are entitled to relief; and that the bequest of 251 shares of stock in the Great Western Turnpike, in the State of New York, is an absolute specific legacy, and is a vested legacy in each of the legatees, of portions…

On the 11th of February, 18-46, Isaac Staats exhibited his hill against Reuben H. Freeman and Margaret his wife, stating, that Abraham Staats, since deceased, the complainant’s father, devised to the complainant the one-half of his homestead farm,, containing about one hundred and thirty acres, in fee, by will dated August 17th, 1819; and that the said Abraham died on the 4th of May, 1821.

<p>The case in Chanceryisreported ante, page 620.</p>

<p>The case in Chancery is reported ante, page 600.</p>