plaintiff1 in the penalty and sum of $10, one-half for himself and one-half for the overseers of the poor of said town, for the use of the poor, and an action has accrued to the plaintiff to recover the same. Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for the said sum, and costs.2 (9.) MISCELLANEOUS CASES OF ACTIONS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, WRITTEN OR PAROL. (No. 49.) For breach of contract for the sale of railroad stock. SUPERIOR COURT-CITY OF NEW-York. Charles Gould Justus L. McCarty. The abovenamed plaintiff complains : That the abovenamed defendant, on the 27th day of September, 1851, at the city of New-York, in considera 1 In pleading a private statute or a right derived therefrom, it shall be sufficient to refer to such statute by its title and the day of its passage, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice thereof. (Code, § 163.) 2 The above precedent is precisely like that in the case of The People v. Bennett (5 Abbott, 384), which was held good by the court, notwithstanding the decision in Morehouse v. Crilley (8 How., 431). The provisions of the Revised Statutes, it was said (per BIRDSEYE, J.), relative to the forms of declarations in actions for statute penalties (2 Rev. Stat., 282, § 10), are not abrogated by the Code; and the method of declaring, authorized by them, is still proper. tion of the contracting and purchase by the plaintiff hereinafter mentioned,' contracted with the plaintiff to sell, and sold to the plaintiff, one hundred shares of the capital stock of the New-York and Erie Railroad Company, at the price of $72 for each share thereof, with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum thereafter, the stock to be delivered, and the prices and interest to be paid within sixty days thereafter, at the option of the defendant; and the plaintiff, at the same time, in consideration of the aforesaid contracting and sale by the defendant, contracted with the defendant to purchase, and purchased from the defendant, the said stock, at the prices and on the terms aforesaid; that the plaintiff, at all times within said sixty days, was ready and willing to receive the said stock and pay therefor, pursuant to said purchase, but the defendant did not deliver the same; that the said stock at the end of the said sixty days was, and thence hitherto has been and still is, worth a much greater sum than the said price and interest, and the plaintiff has sustained great loss and damages by the said default of the defendant, and that the plaintiff has duly performed all the conditions precedent of the contract on his part.2 Wherefore the plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant for $5,000 damages, besides costs of action. LITCHFIELD & TRACY, Plaintiff's Attorneys. 1 As to pleading a consideration in an action on contract, and when and in what cases the complaint upon its face must show a consideration, see Pleadings, 216, 222. 2 The foregoing complaint contained another similar cause of action, which is here omitted. (No. 50.) For a breach of a contract for the sale of real property and fixtures, the value thereof to be determined by arbitration, and the defendant refusing to perform after award made.1 SUPERIOR COURT-CITY OF NEW-YORK. John Lyon and Stewart S. Haff agt. Benjamin Blossom and Charles W. Blossom. The complaint of the plaintiffs, lately composing the mercantile firm of Lyon & Haff, shows to this court: That on or about the 25th day of April, 1854, these plaintiffs sold and delivered to the defendants, then and now composing the firm of Benjamin Blossom & Son, the sheds and fixtures on the premises, foot of Montague-street, Brooklyn, then known as Lyon & Haff's naval store yard; and the said defendants accepted and received the same, and agreed to pay these plaintiffs therefor, as hereinafter mentioned. That in order to arrive at and determine the value of said property, so sold and delivered as aforesaid, the said plaintiffs and defendants did make and execute, under their respective hands, an instrument in writing, in the words and figures following, to wit: We hereby constitute and appoint James B. Barney and William S. Wright to appraise the sheds and fixtures now on the premises, foot of Montague-street, Brooklyn, known as Lyon & Haff's naval store yard, and bind ourselves, each to the other, to abide by their valuation of the same, at which we, Lyon & Haff, agree to sell the same to Benjamin Blossom & Son; and we, Benjamin Blossom & Son, agree to buy the same of Lyon & Haff. 1 This case is reported in 4 Duer, 318. It being hereby agreed that, in case the appraisers named above should be unable to agree in their valuation, they shall select a third and disinterested party, as usual in such cases, to assist them in the appraisement. Witness our hands, this 25th day of April, 1854. (Signed,) BENJAMIN BLOSSOM & SON, LYON & HAFF. That the said Barney & Wright, being unable to agree upon a valuation of said property, did thereupon, pursuant to the requirement of said instrument, select one Robert White, a third and disinterested party, to assist them in such appraisement. That said Barney, Wright and White did thereupon examine said property, and the said Wright and White did then and there agree that the value of said property was the sum of $2,550; and did make and execute under their hands, and deliver to the plaintiffs, an instrument in writing, in the words and figures following, to wit: We, the undersigned, William S. Wright, one of the appraisers appointed April 25th, 1854, by Messrs. B. Blossom & Son and Messrs. Lyon & Haff, to appraise the sheds and fixtures on the premises foot of Montague-street, Brooklyn, known as Lyon & Haff's naval store yard, and Robert White, the person selected by Messrs. James B. Barney and William T. Wright, appraisers appointed as aforesaid (said Barney and Wright being unable to agree in their valuation), having, with said James B. Barney, examined the sheds and fixtures referred to in the agreement of purchase between Messrs. B. Blossom & Son and Lyon & Haff, dated April 25th, 1854, do certify that we appraise the said shed and fixtures at $2,550, as a just and fair valuation of the same. Dated, August 21st, 1854. (Signed,) ROBERT WHITE, WM. S. WRIGHT. That the said sheds and fixtures were reasonably worth the sum of $2,550. That the said defendants, by reason of the premises, became, and were and still are, indebted to these plaintiffs, to said amount, for said sheds and fixtures delivered as aforesaid; that, though the plaintiffs have demanded payment from the said defendants, they have neglected and refused, and still do neglect and refuse, to pay these plaintiffs the same or any part thereof. Wherefore these plaintiffs demand judgment against the said defendants for the sum of $2,550, with interest from the 25th of August, 1854, besides the costs of this action. MONELL, WILLARD & ANDERSON, Plaintiffs' Attorneys. (No. 51.) For breach of a contract of guarantee. SUPREME COURT-WESTCHESTER COUNTY. Abram Knight, Junior, agt. John McKnight. The abovenamed plaintiff complains against the said defendant: That the said plaintiff purchased of the said defendant one hundred barrels of ale for the sum of $7 per barrel, and fifty half barrels of ale for the sum of $4 per half barrel, and paid for the same the sum of $900; that at the time of the said purchase, the said defendant made his written guaranty, under seal, in the words and figures following, to wit: |