Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

of the said money alleged to have been paid by him to them, which they allege to amount, with interest up to the 1st of August, 1854, to the sum of $51,820.80.

Third. That on the 29th day of August, 1854, the plaintiff, and his said associates, caused to be tendered, on their behalf, to the said Holbrook, five hundred and eighteen shares of the capital stock of the New York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company, the par value of each share being $100, together with $23.50, and demanded of him the bonds and stock aforesaid ; but the said Holbrook did not receive the said shares or money, or deliver up the said bonds and stock.

Fourth. That as the plaintiff is informed and believes, the said Darius B. Holbrook, and Holbrook had not, nor had either of them, during the said month of August, nor at any time since, the bonds and stock of the Newfoundland Electric Telegraph Company aforesaid, or the larger part thereof.

Fifth. That notwithstanding the said tender and refusal, and the inability of the said Darius B. Holbrook and Holbrook to comply with the terms of the said agreement, the said Darius B. is now continually annoying the plaintiff and his associates with his pretended demands upon them, under pretence of the said agreement, and as the plaintiff is informed and believes, threatens to bring suits against them and against the said New-York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company in this country and in Newfoundland.

Sixth. That the plaintiff has not been able to obtain the consent of his said associates to be joined with him as plaintiffs in this action, and for that reason they are made defendants.

See Code, $ 110; Pleadings, 133, 134.

Seventh. That the plaintiff and his said associates are all stockholders in the said New-York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company.

Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment, that the said agreement be delivered up to the plaintiff to be canceled, and that in the mean time, the said Darius B. Holbrook and — Holbrook, and each of them, be enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any action or actions, suit or suits, against the plaintiff and his associates, or the said New-York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company, upon the said agreement, or for any other cause of action arising out of the said agreement, or connected therewith or relating thereto, and from taking any proceedings against the plaintiff, legal or otherwise, 'for any matter connected with the interest of the said Darius B. Holbrook and — Holbrook, or either of them, in the said Newfoundland Electric Telegraph Company, or the claims of them, or either of them, against the said company.

FIELD & SLUYTER,

Plaintiff's Attorneys.

( No. 24.)

For an injunction order, and a receiver, in aid of an action

to recover the possession of personal property."

SUPERIOR COURT-CITY OF NEW-YORK.

Benjamin F. Hunt

agt. William Mootry.

Benjamin F. Hunt, of the city of New-York, plaintiff, complains and alleges :

In an action for the recovery of the possession of personal property, an injunction, under the Code, may be allowed in aid of the action, First. That on or about the 27th day of September, 1843, Jane Hunt, of Watertown, in the State of Massachusetts, the paternal grandmother of the plaintiff, being then the owner of the seven family portraits, and other painting, hereinafter mentioned, and in possession thereof, at her house, in said Watertown, executed under her hand and seal, and delivered to the plaintiff, a bill of sale, or deed of gift, of the said eight paintings, among other things, in the following words:1

And the said deed and gift were accepted by this plaintiff, and the property delivered accordingly.

Second. That among the family paintings, referred to in the aforesaid bill of sale, or deed of gift, were the following portraits:

The portrait of Madam Anne Bureau, the widow of Benjamin Faneuil the elder, &c. [specifying them], which said portraits are all by the hands of eminent painters; and two of them, the portraits of the said Andrew Faneuil and his wife, are supposed, and the plaintiff believes justly, to have been painted by Sir Peter Lely; and the whole of said portraits are of great intrinsic value, as works of art but of much greater value to the plaintiff, and more highly prized by him, from their being the portraits of relatives and ancestors.

Third. That the said other painting, above referred to, is an old painting representing fire-arms and shooting tackle, the gift of a relative to the said Jane Hunt, as the plaintiff is informed and believes.

it appearing that the plaintiff is entitled to it by reason of the injury to him. (Furniss v. Brown, 8 How., 59; Erpstein v. Berg and others, 13 How., 91.)

1 The instrument gives the paintings to the plaintiff, in trust, for the use of the grantor, during her life ; and after her death, to the sole use and disposal of the plaintiff, in the confidence that he will keep and dispose of them as family memorials," &c.

Fourth. That the said Jane Hunt, after executing and delivering the said bill of sale, or deed of gift, and on or about the 5th day of July, 1844, departed this life, at said Watertown, and the said paintings were soon afterwards removed by the plaintiff to Charleston, in the State of South Carolina, the plaintiff then residing in that place, with his father, the late Col. Benjamin F. Hunt; and the said paintings remained in said Charleston, in the plaintiff's control and possession, in the house of his father, till the plaintiff's removal to New-York, in 1853, when he left them, temporarily, in his father's house, until some time in the month of March, 1854, when this plaintiff had them packed up, and brought to the city of New York, from Charleston; and on their arrival in New-York, as the plaintiff had not then taken a house, and had no convenient place to store them, he left them in the house of William Mootry, the defendant, for safe keeping, till the plaintiff should find some other place for them.

Fifth. That afterwards, and some time in the month of June, 1854, the plaintiff having moved into his own house, in Sixth-street, in the city of New-York, where he now resides, the said family paintings were sent for, and the said William Mootry was requested not to retain the said paintings, it being the plaintiff's intention to hang them on the walls of his own house, in Sixth-street; but the said Mootry refused to give up the said paintings, and has persisted in such refusal to the present time.

Sixth. That the said William Mootry keeps the said paintings concealed from the plaintiff, and threatens, as the plaintiff is informed and believes, to cut or injure the same, rather than that the plaintiff should have them.

Seventh. That no recovery in damages would be an adequate compensation to the plaintiff for the loss of the said paintings.

Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment, that the said William Mootry restore the said paintings, hereinbefore referred to, unto the plaintiff, and that a receiver may be appointed by the Court, to take the custody and immediate possession thereof, during the pending of this action; and, that, in the meantime, the said William Mootry be enjoined from disposing of, destroying, cutting, mutilating, injuring, concealing, or removing out of the jurisdiction of this Court, the said paintings, or any of them.

FIELD & SLUYTER,

Plaintiff's Attorneys.

( No. 25.)

Prayer to a complaint, for an injunction, to restrain laying

a railroad track in a city; the relief demanded being on behalf of the plaintiff, and all other tax payers and property owners, &c., of the city.

The plaintiffs, therefore, on their own behalf, and on behalf of all other tax payers, citizens, and inhabitants of said city, and owners of property in said street, called Brcadway, pray and demand, that an injunction order may be issued and granted herein, by this Honorable Court, directed to the said defendants [naming them), their, and each of their associates, counselors, attorneys, solicitors and agents, and all persons acting in aid or assistance of them, or either of them, whereby they, and each of them, may be absolutely enjoined and restrained from

From the case of Milhau v. Sharp and others (15 Barb., 193; 17 Barb., 435; 11 How., 102).

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »