Clure, under the said act, he contracted with Benjamin S. Brundage, the petitioner, to sell to him a part of the mortgaged premises, and on the the first of May, 1826, conveyed to him the same, and took, in the name of the people, from the said Benjamin S. Brundage, a bond and mortgage for the sum of $4,390, payable with interest.The petitioner states, that the bond was given for the purpose of applying when paid, on the original bond of the said George M'Clure. The committee also understand it in the same way-that the bond of Brundage was in fact given for the benefit of the said George M'Clure, and was a collateral security to that which had already been given. On the 21st of April, 1828, on a petition from the said Benjamin S. Brundage, an act was passed by the legislature, extending the time of the payment of the monies due on his said bond; but before this act was passed, an application was made to the said George M'Clure, for his consent to the extension of the time of payment, on the ground that a grant of the request of the petitioner might be construed into an assumption of the Brundage debt, and thereby discharge the said George M'Clure of so much of his bond. Such consent was obtained, and the time of the payment postponed, but with an express reservation of the rights of the state against the said George M'Clure, and that the act should not be construed in any manner to affect or invalidate certain bonds and mortgages before executed to the state, by the said George M'Clure, and for which the mortgage executed by Brundage was held as collateral security. The said Brundage has never paid a dollar on his bond and mortgage, either before or since the extension of the time of payment; and the said George M'Clure became so sensible of the necessity to taking compulsory measures against the said Brundage, that on his application, under his direction and at his cost, a suit has been commenced upon the said bond and mortgage, and a suit is now progressing to judgment. It is from this suit which Brundage prays to be relieved. The committee can see no reason why the state should interfere; it is the claim of George M'Clure, and he ought certainly to be permitted to enforce it in his own way. An interference, such as is asked by the petitioner, is no more or less than to assume the debt, discharge said George M'Clure, and again postpone the time of payment of the monies due from said Brundage. If it was a debt due absolutely from Brundage, and no other security was held by the state, we could not recommend another postponement, especially as no effort has been made to comply with the assurances of payment, which were the foundation of the act of 1828. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: Resolved, That the petitioner have leave to withdraw his petition. IN ASSEMBLY, January 13, 1830. ANNUAL REPORT Of Abner Hubbard, an Inspector of Lumber for the County of Monroe. To the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New-York: Report of lumber measured and inspected at Rochester, in the county of Monroe, and State of New-York, during the year 1829, by Abner Hubbard, one of the inspectors of lumber for the said county of Monroe: 1st quality pine boards and plank, 105,404, at $10, is.. $1,054 04 309,963, at 7, is.. 2,169 74 5, is.. 4,381 27 Joists and scantling, |