The New York Herald Newspaper, February 27, 1876, Page 6

6 “THE COURTS. An Important Decision Rendered in the Case of Duncan, Sherman & Co. The Petition to Dissolve the Order of | Involuntary Bankruptcy Denied. eae Yaa Grounds and Specifications Why the Motion Is Not Granted. Verdict Against the City for Damages | on that subject.” Is was ander this lattor provision that the proceedings in this case were taken. The debtor is ciearly invited by the statute to make such admission, if the admission can be made im good faith, and he is invited to do 80 op the Gling of the petition and before the orter to show cange iz issued or can be served, and when he can be advised of the existence of the petition ouly by tnformation communicated to bim otherwise than dn the duc course of a legal proceeding, If on the making of admission the Court is satisfied that the ad- (nission 1 made in good faith the Court is required to “so adjudge’’—that is, to adjudge “that the requisite number and amount of creditors bave petitioned,’ and Mf enacted that such judgment sball be tinal, and that the matter shall proceed without further steps on that subject, The requirements in respect to the three classes of Cases of action on the returu day of the order to show cause and the finality of the judgment is de- clared in the same terms The admission in this case and the jadgment thereon were in due form. No ques- tion 1s raised on thatsubject, What, then, is the effect of the statute? The Court is aatborized to flud a tact, to be satished of the existence of a fact, by evidenee Placed before it, either a sworn allega! in the peti- tion, Dot denied by the debtor, or the return of the NEW YORK HERALD, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY .27, 1876. the requisite namber and value. It was deemed them important and necessary that they ould do so for the ends before stated. If they could secure the co-operation of their debtors, not only in Bot resisting the petition, but in inducing, by lawfal means, creditors to join in the petition, ‘and ‘im maxing the written admission invited by the statute, as to the requisite number and amount of creditors, and in | appearing and waiving service of notice and consenting the act of 1867 (now sections 5,025 and 6,026 of the Re- | vised Stasutes) such action of the debtors cannot, without an entire abrogation of the provisions of the statutes be heid to be anlawful It 1s uot alleged or | shown ‘bat the debtors or any creditors influenced the | action of any creditor im respect of unitimg in the in- voluntary petition, by any pecuniary consideration or obligation, within the purview of section 5,110 of the Re- vised Statutes, The fact thatas an incident of the in- voluntary proceeding the debtors will, if other- wise entitled to & charge, be enabled to secure 1t without paying any percentage of their debts or ob- taining the assent of auy of their creditors is no valid objection to an adjudication in yolaainey bankruptcy, sbown to bave been aided by the debtors in the order to show cause, or evidence that added creditora, | mManmoer in which such aid was giv in the present | coming in after a denial by the debtor on such return, | case. 48 pointed out in re Scull (1 Benedict, 371, | make up the requisite aumber and amount, or on ad- | 375), the provision of the statute, that In cases of in- mission by the debtor made in writiug ou the filing | Voluntary bankruptcy the bankrupt may receive a dis- of the petiti it the Gourt be Satisfied that | charge, if otherwise entitied thereto, without paying such admission is made im good taith, If the | any proportion of bis debis and without procuring the for Injuries. Judge ord, in the United States District Court yesterday, sitting in Bankruptey Court, rendered the following decision in the case of William B. Duncan and others, bankrupts The document is given entire as a matter of interest, and because of its importance as @ precedent, and for its influence in the future in bueb cases:— Ta this case, on the 18th of December, 18 tion in involuntary bankruptcy, was presente filed in this Court, praying that Wiliam Botler I can, William Watts Sherman, apd Francis n, copartners underthe firm name of Duncan, Shermon & Co., be adjudged bankrupts, The petition purported tobe the petition of 205 creditors. It set forih the claims of those creditors and was signed by them. It Seprerey verified, 1t averred that the debtors re. sided tn the city of New York and had carried on busi- ness in this district for more than six months next preceding the date’ of fling the petition; that the de- mands of the petitioners were rovable in accordan with the provisions of the Revised Statutes and the several amendments there- of; that the petitioners believed that the ebtors, as such copartuers, owed debts to an amount exceeding the sum of $300; that the petrtion- | ers’ demands each exceeded the amount of $250, and that the petitioners constituted one-fourth, at least in number, of all the creditors of the debtors as such co- partners whose debts exceeded $250, and that the Aggregate of the petitioners’ debts provable under 5 Revised Statutes and the said several amendme: thereot, amounted to at least one-third of ail the debts £0 provable against said debtors as such copartners, It averred properly acts of bankruptcy, and was accom. panied by depositions as to such acts and by deposi- tions as to the claims of the first five signers of the petition. It was also accompanied by a paper, signe and acknowledged by the three debtors, in which they ated that “upon the filing of the petition” they sev erally appear in person and admit that the requisite number and amount of their creditors have petitioned for at@djudication ot bankruptcy against them herein, and waive service @t a copy of the petition and of the order to show cause herein, and admit that they com- mitted the acts of bankruptey alleged in said petition and consent to the entry of an order of adjudication. It was further accompanied by an affidavit made by Waiter 5. Carter, one of the attorneys for the petition- ing creditors, setting forth that be has examined the statements of debts of said alleged bankrupts, and that the total mumber of creditors of said alleged bankrupts whose claims exceed $250 does not exceed 786, and that the aggregate of allthe debts of said alleged bankrupts provavle under the Revised Statutes of the United States, titie 61, bankruptcy, and the several amendments and sup- ploments thereof, does pot exceed the amount ef 400,000; that the number of creditors whose debis exceed the amount of $250 uniting im the petition theren is 205, the aggregate of whi debts, provabie under said Revised Statutes and said several amend- ments and supplements thereof, amounts to $2,268,14z 49 On the presentation and filing of thes papers the Court made an order on tbe 18th of Decem- ber, 1875, m these words :—*‘Upon reading and filing the foregoing admission, and also the affidavits of Walter S. Carter, and the Court bemg satisfied that said ad- mission was made in good faith, it is hereby adjudged that the requisite number and amount of the creditors ot the said William Butler Dunean, William Watts Sherman and Francis H Grain, copartners, under the firm name of Duncan, Sherroan & Co., have petitioned for an adjudication of bankruptey against them in the above entitled matter, and that the same proceed with- out further steps on that subject, Thereupon on the Court finds:such ists, and that fuct it is to adjudge that the fact ex- igmentis declared to be final; and it ne Matter in bankruptcy shail proceed withou steps om that subject, These pro- ons a d tndieave that some ve meaning Must be attached to the word “tinal Itis to be the end of all inquiry ou ‘the point as to whether the required number and amount of creditors have petitioned, There are to ve D0 further steps on that subject, Ifthe debtor denies the allegation on the retura of the order to show cuuse and tiles a list of his cred- itors, and the Court, on notice to the creditors and om evidence obtained by an investigation, determines that the required number and amount of creditors have not petitioned, and then aliows time for ochers to join, and they do join and sign the petition, and then the Court | determines and adjudges that with those so joming the required umber have petitioned, that judgivent is to be final, and it is not to be permitted either to the debior or to any creditor thereafter to come in and bow that the Court erred, and that the fact was other- wise ifalike judgment on a failure of the debtor to deny, on the return of the order to show cause, the allegation of the petition as to the number and amount ef creditors, and so, if @ like judgment on an admission by the debtor, on the filing of the petition, that the requisite number and amount of creditors have petitioned. sary limit to the number of times the Court may be required to re-examine the question thus declared to be finally adjudged. 1 speak now of an allegation merely that the Cougt in fact erred, ang not of an allegation o! fraud or bad faith. These provisions show that the judgment is final not only as respects the debtor but tas respects all his creditors, estate and all interested in it judgment im rem. in respect to the matter adjudged by tt These provistuns further show that the requirement of the statuie that the petition shail be the petition of one-fourth in number and one-third in amoust of the creditors, is point, oF @ quasi jurisdictional © point, such wise that, whea there is a proper allegation in the petition as to the number and amount of creditors, | and when there is a jucgment of the Court that such allegation 1s true, the factcan be re-examined either vy the Court which rendered the judgment or in a col- literal proceeding, unless fraud be alleged and proved, The observations of Judge Lowell, in ex parie Jewell (Na and Bey. Rog, ' 443, 444), seems t me to be entirely ‘sound. He says:—* cunnot see that the number and amount of petitioners has anything todo with the jurisdiction of the Court, Congress has very carefully provided that a want of parties shall be taken advantage of as a strictly dila- tory plea and disposed of in a summary way, not tor the purpose of ascertaining the jurisdiction of the Court, but the sutliciency of the ‘plaintiff's petition, which is @ very different thing. If the Court should decide wrongly on that point tts decision would bind all Unless this be so there is no neces- | Ik 18 final as reapects his | It is im the nature of a | | assent of any portion of bis creditors asa condition of his discharge; while im cases of voluntary bankruptcy no discharge can be granted to a debtor whose assets are uot equal to thirty per cent of the claims proved against bis estate, upon which he is liable as principal debtor, without tue assent of at least one-fourth of his cred- itors in number and one-third in value, 1s based on the | view that if one-fourth im nomber and one-third in | | value of the creditors petition im involuntary bank- | ruptcy, they shail be regarded, under the provisions of the statute, as assenting to the discharge of the bank- rupt, in like manner as one-fourth in number and one- third in value assent in voluntary bankruptey. This | view is concurred in_by Judge Lowell (In re Wilson, | 18 Nat. Bankruptcy, Reg. 253.) As the debtor is ex- pressiy allowed by statute to procure, by lawful solici- | tation from his creditors, their affirmative assent to his discharge in proceedings in voluntary bankruptcy, no reasonable oljection can exist to his procur- | tog from them, by lawful solicitation, their im- ued assent to his discharge im proceedings | im involuntary bankruptcy by procuring by lawful solicitation signatures to the petition in involuntary bankruptcy, if such creditors deem-it for their interest to institute proceedings in involuntary bankraptey. I do not perceive that Mr, Elliott was a partner who should have been joined in the proceedings As to the | Suggestion that certain conveyances, transfers and rupts, all made more than four months betore the peti- | ton in bankruptcy was filed, could have been set | aside by the assignee in bankruptcy as being in | fraud of the bankruptcy statute if the bank rupts bad filed a voluntary petition witnina the time limited by the thirty-f(th section of the act of 1867 (now sections 5,128, and 5,129, Revised Statutes) as modified by section 10, act 1874, after the | transaction occurred, 18 is sufficient answer to gay that the observation is equally true of the failure of credi- not @ jurisdictional | tors to file an involuntary petition within the time so | orderly conduct, tending to a breach of the peace, and in | limited, ag the limitation in the statute is expressly | committed her to prison in default of $1,000 bail fur applied to one and the same period before the filing of @ petition against the debtor, and before the filing of a petition by him, But the fact that both the creditors and the debtors failed to file any petition In bankruptcy until the one now ander consideration was dled, and that thus certain transfers which might have been at- tacked as fraud «of the bankruptcy | statute, cannot now be attacked, can ia | | no*manner bear on the question of the validity of the present proceedings in bankruptcy. set aside us in violation of the bankruptcy statute, which could mot otherwise be set aside, and if they did not choose to avail themselves of opportunities which the bankruptcy or the debtors had filed « petition in bankruptey at ap earlier day that fact can be no objection to the tiling the land. ‘The District Court has jurisdiction in bank- | of the present petition with the other advantages to rnptey of every person residing within the district who ewe $300 of provable debts, and, when a paper purports to be a petition in bankruptcy, and which alleges su residence and indebiedness is filed, and un order of notice has been duly served, there is and can be no jurisdictional fact remaiming, tf the residence and_in- Webtedoess to the extent of $300 are admitted. The Court may then proceed to allow or refuse amendments or anything else proper for a court to do that has un- doubted jurisdiction of the subject matter aud the partes.”” In that case the petition was one in involun- tary bankruptcy, and there had been noadjudication, but a resolution for a composition had been passed. It' was objected that the petition was fatally defective and gave bo jurisdiction to the Court, so that a case in ban ruptey could be said to be pending, because it averred that the petitioning creditors constituted the requisite number and amount of the creditors of one of the pe- titioning creditors instead of the person proceeded against. The Court, while of opinion that no amend- | same day, on the foregoing appearance in person and ment was necessary, granted a motion to amend in the | congent of the debtors, an order of adjudication in bankruptcy in due form, was entered and fied Cer tain creditors of the bankrupts, six in number, had, prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, ob tained judgments against them as copartners, in a court of the State, amd three of these six haa, prior to the Mling of such petition, brought what is known as creditors’ suite in a court of the State, tounded on such Pere ect to reach assets alleged to have been traus- ferred by the debtors m fraud of creditora One other ‘of the six had, prior to the filing of the petition m bankruptcy, made @ levy under an execution issued on bis judgment on property alleged by him w be lable wo such levy, Seven other crediwrs bave recovered judgments against the debtors as copartuers twa court of the State since the petition in bankruptcy was filed. On the 24th of December, 1875, this Court, on the petition of the bankrupts made an order stay: ing the suits brought by the said thirteen creditors until the question of the discharge of the debtors shall have been determined, and staying the issuing of execution on the Judgments and further proceedings on executions issued. The creditors so stayed have presented a petition to the Court praying that the ad. jadieation of bankruptey and all the proceedings there- under be adjudged void and revoked The ground urged for setting aside the adjudication ts that the pe (ition for adjudication and the paper which accom- panied {t do not show that the petition ts the petition of creditors to one-third of the amopnt of the debts, dut shows that it is not the petition of creditors to one-third of the amount of devis Another ground urged is thatit may now be shown by evidence aliunde the papers which were before the Court when the ad. Judicavion was made, that one-third in amount of the creditors did not unite in the petition, and that such fact bas been shown, The twellth section of the act of June 22, 1874 (18 U. & 8. at Large, 180), in amend:nent of the tbirty-ninth section of the act of March 2, 1b07 (13 Ib., 536), provides that any person residing within the jurisdiction of the United States, and owing pemable debts exceeding the amouut of $200, who shall commit any one of certain specific acts “shall be deem to have committed an act of bankruptcy, and, subject to the conditions berein- after prescribed, shall be adjudged bankrupt on the petition of ove or more of his ereditors, who shail constitute one-fourth thereof, at least, in number, and the aggregate of whose debts provavie under (his act amounts to at least one-third of the debts so provabie,” and that “the Court shall, if such allegation as to the nuiwher or amount of petitioning creditors be denied by ihe dedior by @ statement in iting to that effect, require him to file in Court forth- th afall list of bis creditors, with their places of residence and the sums due them respectively, and hall ascertain, upon reusovable votice to the creditors, ther one-jourth in pamber and one-third ip amount thereot, as aforesaid, lave petitioned that the debtor judged a bankrupt.” The section then procceds:— “But if such debtor shall, on the fling of the petition, admit im writing that the requisite number and amount ‘of Creditors have petitioned, the Court, if satisfied that the admission was made in good faith, shall so adjndge, which judgment shall be final, and the matter proceed without further steps om tb ubject, and if itshall appear that such number and amount have not so peti- tioned, the Court sbail grant reasonable time, not ex- ceeding, im cases heretofore commenced, twenty days, and in cases hereafter commenced ten days, within which other creditors may jom in such petition, And if at the expiration of such time so limited the number and amouut shall comply with the require- ments of this section the matter of bankruptcy may proceed, but if at the expiration of such limited tine such number and amount shall not answer the require- ments of this sec the proceedings shall be dis Missed, and, in cases thereafter commenced, with costa? The thirteenth section of the act of 187 mend- ment of the forueth section of the act of 1807, provides as toliows:—'‘And if enthe return day of the order to show cause, as aforesaid, the Court shall be satistied | that the requirement of section thirty-nine of said act as to the number and amount of petitiomng creaitors has been complied with, or :f within the time provided for in section thirty-nine of this act creditors sufficient rand atgount shall sign such petition, so as make a total of one-tourth im number of the credit- ors and and one-third in the amount of the provable deots against the bankrupt, as provided in said sec. tion, the Court shall so adjudge, which jadgment sbail be Gnal; ocherwise it shall dismiss the proceedings, and, in cases bereafier commenced, with costs” A care! examination of these provisvons shows that Congress intended that certain preseribed steps sha de taken to ascertain whether the petition presen fe the petition of one or more creditors, who constitute one-fourth at least the creditors in number, and ts of the petitioning the act amounts to at least one-third of the debts so provable in the first place, the agen Must allege that fact, That fact is alleged tition ip this case. If such allegation i de- by the debtor, either as to number or amount, in writing, the Court is required to ascertain, om notice | to the creditors, whether one-fourth ip number bs aforesaid, have peuoned others to joi one-third in amonn u Bot, it the Tequired number join the matter is to procee if not, the proceedings are to be dismissed. If, on the | return day of the order to show cause, fhe Court ts | Batistied that the requirements of the uct as to the number and amount of petition'ng creditors has | deen complied with or if, within the ume | Mclent number and amount sigh } such requirements the Court is ¢, The foregoing | Jebtor appears denies | on, and the cases where be ap- | Genial of it, and the cases where cover the cases where the allegation in ques: aud makes 9 does not appear at all, but makes default: Bot there remains aootber class of cases, The foregoing three Clagees are cases Of action on the return day of the order to show cause. The remaining class comprises | that the requi- e petitioned non te gite number and amount of cre If he dooe the Court, satisfied that (ne adm), made fh good faith, is required to ‘80 adjud nd it sdeciared that such “judgment ehal) be end Jpet the matier shall “vroceed without further ateus | Blatebford, G. O.R, 872. Thi | this case manifestly concurred and expressed in the citcular note of the debtors, that the | teriering with any property of the bankrupts, or any | administration of the-®state of the debtors in bank. | property which, by operation of law, will pass to thei? | above particular. In the present case the petition contains all the necessary jurisdictional allegations, and the further allegation that the petitioners constitute one fourth, at least, in number of all the creditors of the debtors ns copartners in basin under the tirm name of Duncan, Sherman & Co. debts exceed $260, and that the aggregute of the pe- tittover’s debts, provable under the statute, amount to at least one-third of all the debts so provable against the debtors as such copartners, set out the nature and amounts of the several claims of the petitioning creditors. It nowhere appears in the petition what is the total number of all the creditors of the debtors whose debts exceed $250 or what is the Votal amount of the debts provable against the debtors, 80 that the Court can say, on inspecting the pétition and comparing the number of petitioning creditors whose with any total number or the aggregate of the debis set forth as debta due to the petitioning creditors with any total amount of provable debis, that the requisite number and amount of creditors have not petitioned There is an | allegation tp the petition that they have. Hence such allegation cannot. be regarded as being over- borne or contrulled by, any confiicting facts appearing on the face of the’petition. This observation applies to the error, mamiiestly clerical, in omitting to ii in the amounts of the debts in three instances, and to the statements of the claim af Baring Brothers & Co. As to any facts set forth in the affidavit of Walter 3 Carter, presented to the Court with the petition to satisfy the Court that the admission of the debtor was made in good faith, such affivavit was no part of the petitian. The Court received it as evidence of the good jaith of the admission, and acted upon it, and there- upop, upon it and upon the petition, adjudged that the requisite number and amount had fetitioned. Any in- quity now into the truth of the facts set forth in such | affidavit, or any re-examination of the fact adjudged by the Court, is forbidden, a8 before shown, unless fraud or bad faith be alleged. As to fraud or bad faith, there is not the slightest evidence that the petitioning creditors, or any of them, in signing the petition containing — the allegations it docs, did not, in good faith, believe those allegations to be true, or mere parties to any fraud or impositiun in respect of any of such alle- gaitons Nor is there any evidence that the debtors in , signing the admission they did practice any fraud or imposition of acted in bad faith, or that Mr. Carter did so in making the statement contained in his aftidavit Moreover, it I were now to entertain the forbidden in- quiry as vo whether the petitioning creditors did, when the petition was filed, constitute the requisite number and amount, the burden of proof, after an adjudication made on a petition regular on its face, would be on those who apply to set aside the adjudication, and on the evidence now adduced on the question I could not hesitate to say that the applicants had failed to mako, and that the petitioning oredttors were not sufficient in number and amount, ‘The acjudication is further attacked on the ground of what is called collusion by the debtors, This collusion ts alleged to consist in the fact that the debtors gave their aid and assistance to the signing, presenting and filing of the petition tied against them, and followed that up by making the written admission and waiver of service of the order to show cause before set forth. inst them, and they sent a circular note, signed by themselves, to others of their creditors, say: ing that ‘‘a movement is now on foot among some of our feading creditors so put us into involuntary bank- ruptoy, and we fee! aseared that this course will real- ize the most to our creditors and be the best for all concerned,’’ and asking for the signature of the credi- tor to aD appended paper, authorizing the atiorneys who represent the petitioning creditors in these pro- ceedings to sign the créditor’s name to @ petition in bapkruptey against devtor, It is alleged that the debtors thos favored, tnstead of resist ing what is, under the ‘statute, a hostile proceeding, thus made {% ostensibly hostile when it wae really not hostile; that what the debtors ought to have done was to file a petition in voluntary bauk- ruptey; that, under this involuntary petition they may, if otherwise entitled to a discharge, be enabled to procure it without paying the proportion of their debts OF Obtaining the ass of creditors, required tn re- spect of proceedings under a voluntary petition, and that they ought not to be allowed to oblain, by pro- moting the involantary proceedings, an ad e wage which they would not nave enjoyed uf they bad fied a | Voluntary petition. No creditor who joined in the involuntary petition appears to make any complaint in respect of aby moe ter, The creditors whe jou it have rights which the Court is bound tw consider, They took these pro- credings, as ts very apparent, for the purpose of secur. ing, as tar as possibie, an equal tribution of the property of the deviors among all ther unsecured creditors and for the purpose of preventing any more creditors besides those who might by the proceedings ip the State courts have already acquired liens or rights of preference from acquiring liens or rights of preference by proceedings im the State courta This was @ lawful mot and os lawfal result It ts one of the results aimed at by the bankruptcy statute Creditors who desire to secure such result secure it by the mere Lge involuntary bankruptcy, if it be followed by an adjudi- cation, No injunction to restrain such proceedings in the State courts i necessary to make the filing of the petition effective to prevent after acquired liens or | rights of preference from attaching. If sueh injunction | is destrable to prevent embarrassment im the fatare from such proceedings it ts granted on the appheation | of the petitioning creditors, as well as on the applica- tion of the bankrapta (United States va Baneroty, 6 Benedict, 392 re Ulrich, Id. 485 petitioning creditors in tuptey would realize the moet to their creditors, and be the best for all concerned, both creditors and estate might be brought into the bank. tuptcy court by involuntary proceedings or by a vol. untary petition by the debtors. The credivors could not compel the debtors to file a voluntary petition. All ‘that ube creditors could do to secure their own intercsts in respect of bankruptcy proceedings was to combine aud unite in @ petition im involuntary bankruptcy ta ess in the city of New York | the fraudulent conveyances, It then proceeds to | ited some of their creditors to join in the pe- | the proper petition in | in re Clark, 9 | oucur in the views | | grow out of it that are accorded by the statute to credi- | tors and debtors: It ts alleged that certain convey- ances, transfers and assignments made by one, or more | or all'of the debtors prior to the filing of the petition | were because of certain irregularities, defects and un- lawiul intents void and of no efleet as having been made With intent to delay, defraud ur hinder the credi- tors of the debtors and for other reasons, and it is claimed that this Court ougnt to allow the creditors who have commenced proceedings in the State courts to set aside such conveyances, transfers and assignments, _—to prosecute’ further such proceedings, ‘Among other things ft is von tended that the power and right of an assignee in bank- ruptey will not extend to the setting aside of the in- etruments im question. The suflicient reply to th gestion 1s that 8o far as any property was the prop- erty of the bankrupts when the petition was filed for the reason that the title to it had not passed out of the bankrupts by conveyances proper and adequate in form to convey it it rests in their assignee when ap- pointed, and he can collect it as assets, and that so far as pay propersy has been conveyed by the bankrupts in fraud of their creditors such property by section 5,046 of the Revised Staiuies rests in the assignee in bankruptcy and he can recover it by a suit to set aside If it be necessary that | vhe assignee in bankruptcy should in such a suit be shown to represent @ creditor who had, beiore the pe- tition in bankruptey was filed and before the wut® of such assignee accrued, acquired @ specific lien upon the property fraudulently conveyed on the ground that such assignee cannot eet aside a conveyance which a creditor could pot set aside, and that under the laws of New York Crediior must have acquired specific lien upon property fraud- | ulently conveyed by bis debtor in order to entitle him to maintain a suit to set aside’ the con- veyance, itis manifest that if, when the petition in bankruptcy was filed, there was a cretiitor occupying euch a position the assignee represents such creditor, and can maintain any suit which suchpreditor could maintain; and that if, when the petitieu in bankruptcy was filed, there was no such creditor, no credilor can, | alter the’ filing of the petition in bankruptcy, sequige | any such lien on property, as the property of bankrupt as against the assignee in bankruptcy aud the general creditors represented by him. The con- Sideration that no creditor can acquire alien on the property of a bankrupt after the dling of a petition in bankraptey, and it may be that there was no creditor baving a lien when the petition was filed, would seem to indicate that to hold that an assignee im bankruptcy cannot, under the provision of the statute which deciares that “all the property conveyed by the bankrupt in fraud of his creditors shall, in virtué of the adjudication in bank- ruptcy and the appointment of his assignee” recover the property thus declared to be vested im bim, uniess there was acreditor bavinga lien when the petition was filed. would entirety render pugatory such provi- sion of the statute in many cases. Whatever authority may be found in re Collins (12 Biateht. C. ©, R,, 648), for so holding would seem to ve a departure from what | was done ip Sedgwick vs, Viace (1d. 163), and in Beecher va Clark (id. 256), and to be in conflict with the cases of Allen vs. Massey (1 Dillon, 40 and 17 Wallace, 851.) Inre Wynne (4 Nat Bkey., Reg. 23, and Bank of Leavenworth va Hunt (11 Wallace, 891), and with the decision of Judge Woodruff, holding the Circuit Court for this district In re Leland (10 Blatchford, © CR 603,) But however this may be, whatever even any creditor had acquired betore the petition in bankraptcy was filed of such acharacter as to place him in @ condition at that time to enforce by a suit the setting aside of a conveyance fraudulent as to cred- itors, or Whatever lien he bad at that tine acquired by bringing any such euit, 1s preserveu by the bankruptcy avute, and will be respected and enforced by te ankruptey Court, which acts as much for secured-cred- itors as for unsecured creditors; but it belongs to that Court to adjudicate as to all such liens, and 1 bas p. wer to restrain all interference by suit or othtrwise by | individual creditors with property which, {{ it be prop- | erty thas was, before the filing of the pe. ition in bank- ruptey, transferred by the debtor in iraud of his creditors, is declared by the statute to be property that vests in the assignee “(In re Grinnell, 3 id., 14; in re Clark, 9 Blatchford, C, C, R, 872; United States vs. | Bancroft, 6 Benedict, 892; in te Ulrich, id. 482) And in this connection it may be observed that what is vested by the statute in the assignee in bankruptcy is all the property conveyed by the bankrupt in fraud of his creditors, and merely such right of action in respeet of such property as the bankrupt bad, or as any creditor had, when the petition in bauk- ruptcy was tiled, and thatas the filing of sueh petition | prevents the aiter attachment of liens on such prop- erty, a8 against the assignee and the creditors of the estate, it is mot only proper but necessary to regard the vesting of the assignee with the title to such prop- erty, as giving him aright to recover and reduce to | possession his own property, and as displacing any re- quirement, which otherwise might exist, that he snall represent & creditor who was at the the time the peti tion in baukruptey was fled clothed with legal process Aaguinst the property, because the title to property & broader interest | Istence of such utle satisfies every principle upon which te existence of a lien or of legal process bas been held bo be requisite. In the present case, the snits already brought and those desired to de brought in the State Court, are nu merous, and the case is-one im which 1 is proper to continue the injunctions and stays granted, unt an assignee in bankruptcy is appointed and can have an opportunity, on behalf of the creditors, to examine | into the matiers relatung to the estate of the bankrapts and ueiermme what action he wil! take in respect to | the property, which, it is alleged, was transterred ip | fraud of creditors of was the property of the bank- | Tupts when the petition in bankruptcy was Bled, | | A bo the ex: mination of the bankrupts in the bank- Tupt proceed: of section 5,086 of the Revised Stat ow creditors to obtain are | an examination of the bankrup' | fhe case of Mrs. Ferrero is governed by the decision of this Court, in re Rosenberg (3 Benedict, 14). Her | suit is really t© recover the money she paid to the | | bankrupts on purchasing a bill of exchange, and is # rovabie debt, although it will not be disc shail be uit and all proceedings im tt are to be ed, on the application of the bankrupts, until the question of their | discharge is determined. 1 have intended to cover the questions raised in the volumimous papers and exhaustive briefs in this case, and have considered them aii, even though | may have failed to discuss some of them as fully as othera 18 results that all the applications must be denied except Uhat of the petitioning creditors to continue im force, ob their behalf, as against the persons heretofore en- | joined on the application of the bankrupts, the inyane lions 80 granted, and to restrain such persons from in- | assignee in bankruptcy when appointed. Field & Deyo, Abbott & Wilds, D. D. Lord & B. le Andrews for the applicants, and F. N. bangs, J. B. Choate & Carter ton opposed, | INTERESTING CITY SUIT. A very interesting case has beon on trial for the Inst ten days balare Judve Larramora holding Supreme to an adjudication, as invited by sections 40 aad 41 of | assignments and a general assignment by the bank. | Creditors were | | the persons most concerned in setting aside under bankruptcy proceedings transactions which could be | n} statute would have offered in case they | ‘an a lien on property. and the ex- | rgeable if | shown Ww have been created by fraud. “Such | | Court, Circuit, On the northeast corner of 125th street and Fourth avenue Christopher Grey keeps a bakery, in front of which he had erected a large wooden awning. Om the 22d of February, 1867, David M. Hays and Wiliam H. Home, nis brother-in-law, stood ander this awning waiting to take the steam cars down town, Suddenly a portion of the awning fell, killing Mr Hays outright and breaking one of Mr. Hume’s legs and injuring him otherwise, A suit was brought by Mr. Hume against the city, claiming $50,000 damages, and on the case being tried before Judge Brady a verdict for $12,000 was grven in his favor, At the same time a verdict by stipulation for $5,000 was given in favor of Mra. Hays as jinistratrix of her husband. An ap- peal was taken from these judgments, and the Court of Appeals set aside the verdict and ordered « new trial In compliance with this order the case of Mr. Hume was retried before Judge Larremore. On behalf of the plain” i was claimed thas the erection of the awning was in violation of the corporation ordinance, that it was not properly constructed, that the portion which gave way was weakened | through a fire engme running against it, and upon | these grounds the city was liabie for damages. It was elarmed for the city ¢! the awning was bailt without tts knowledge or autnorny, and that the cause of ite | oo way was a very heavy fall of snow two day: re the accident. Tho testimony was pretty mucl repetition of that given at the previous trial, Messrs, ER. Robinson and Jobn M Scribner appeared tor the plaintiff aud Assistant Corporation Counsel Requier tor the city. The testimony jor the plaimtif showed that | he had been permanently disabled dy the accident, the | injared jeg beimg shorter than the other, and that tn consequence he had not been able, in pursuance of his vocation as an architect, to go up high ladders as before. On both sides there was a lengthy su ming up. Judge Larremore followed with @ clear and o most comprebensive charge, which cannot fail to have great weight in suits of similar character against the city hereafter. The main points of his charge were that if the awning was constructed in such a defective, neglig manner as to endanger 8 underneath, and that if the in- Juries sustained by tho plaintiff were in consequence of ‘such defective construction, the city was liable, He told the jury, farther, that in making up the estimate of damages they should take into account the physical deformity resaltmg:to the plaintiff trom the action, the bodily - and suffering he underwent in conse- quence of the injury to his general health and nervous system. He also instructed them to take mto account the loss to bis business from the eftects of his injuries. | The jury yesterday brought in a verdict tor $15,000 for | the plains, THE TWELVE COMMITMENTS. On the 16th inst, on a complaint made by Veronie | Parks, who ebarged one Della Tobias with having en- | ticed and persuaded her to leave her home, and with | having secreted and detained her for three days and | four nights, Police Justice Smith, before whom the | case was beard, adjudgea the prisoner guilty of dis- | the term of twelve months. A writ of habeas corpus | and certiorari was sued out in the Supreme Court by Nathan Nesbit, the attorney jor the prisoner, who was thereupon brought yesterday before Justice Lawrence, | at Chambers, It was contended by the District At- rney that the Laws of 1833 and 1860, as decided inthe case of the twelve commitments in 1865 by Chief Justi | Daly, of the Court of Common Pleas, left it entirely to | the discretion of the committing magistrate as to whi consututed the offence of disorderly conduct, and thi the Supreme Court possessed no power to review bi | decision; that tt was final and conclusive and that the | only question to be determined in these proecedings | Was as to the regularity of the form of the commitments itself, and that this being conceded to be regular the | writ must must be discharged. Mr Dougias A. Levien, Jr., counsel for the prisoner, contended that under the act of 1864 the Supreme Court had the power to ex- mine not only the regularity of the proceedings, but | iso into the fact as to whether the magistrate had not | | acted erroneously or upon insufficient evidence; that it was not the intention of or in the power of the Legis. | | lature, where a citigen is deprived of his liberty, to | take away the privilege of the writ of habeas corpns, Judge Lawrence sustained the position taken by coun- eel for the prisoner, holding that he had the aio un- der the writ to examine into the sufficiency of the ev dence upon which the conviction was bi and that there was no testimony to sustain the charge He therefore ordered the release of the prisoner. LATEST MOVE FOR DOLAN. The condemned murderer of James H. Noe, John | Dolan, can certainly not complain fer lack of attention to hiscase, On notice of motion to the District Attor- | ney, an application was made by Mr. William F. Howe | yesterday afternoon to Judge Rapallo, of the Court of Appeals, for a stay of proceedings in behalf of Dolan, and in snpport of this motion the prisoner’s aMdavit was read, setting forth bis Innocence and that Judge Barrett had purposely fixed so remote a day as the 24th of March in order that the case might be heard and determined by the Court of Appeals, and notice | nad accordingly been given to argue the case on March | | & Inconsequence, however, of the Court having ad- | ) Journed to the sh of March, the case could not heard at the intended time, and, under these | Mey: | Young, QUADRUPLE SHEET. tradition Treaty, the ‘was brought before Ji Bonedict, tn the United Cirenit Court, orimtdal branch, plead to 4 new indictment, made to cover alleged outside of the charge upon which be was extradited. . Counset for, the prisover put in a special the treaty the Court had no jurisdiction. United Assistant District At torney Foster said that as he had not been served with of the plea whether he asked: bo and Ji Benedict Journed she case until Bext tg TOMBS POLICE OOURT. Charles Howard, a wel dressed young man, went into the Astor House lunch room and proceeded to de- molish the viands with evident gusto. After he had eaten seventy cents’ worth the walter laid down beside him two checks, one for forty and the other for thirty cents, Howard, thinking the coast was elear, pocketed the checks and attempted to out by the cashier's desk It appears that thie was not the first exploit of the kind he had performed, and the proprietor had been on the lookout for him for some time Just as Howard outside the entrance the proprictor caught him and handed him over to the pohee. The prisoner was held by Justice Duffy on the technical charge of larceny—t ¢, stealing two paper checks, valued at five centa. William Walsh, & hard jiooking character, was eon- vieted of carrying burglars’ wools and was sent to the Peuitentiary tor one ye: WASHINGTON PLACE POLICE COURT. Before Judge Kilbreth. VIOLATIONS OF THE LOTTERY LAW. On Friday mght Detective Murphy, of the Eighth Precinct, arrested John Wilson for keeping a lotiery office at No. 109 Ninth avenue, the complainant bei: David Green, of No. 106 Thompson street, who hi pared ‘at policy and lost money. Wilson was held in 2,000 bail to answer, it being shown that he had been arrested threé times in the last three months tor the same offence Frank Sell, of No. 165 Rast Houston street, was held m $500 bail for the same offence, he having been ar- Detective Adams, who appeared as com- 4 DISHONEST MERCHANT. Harris Bernstein, of No. 140 Norfolk strevt, and Max Friedman, of No. 49 Essex street, were charged by Leopold Miller, of No. 278 West street, with defrauding bim of payment for goods delivered to Bernstein Is appears from the several complaints against Bernstein that he was in the habit of opening cigar stores, pur- chasing tobacco and cigars from wholesale dealers and paying cash forthe sama After thus making a good tm pression he would obtain credit for goods to be de- livered at his store. He would then store the goods in some storage warehouse, aud when the bill be- came due nothing could be found im his store The complaint of Mr, Miller states that in December last he sold $367 worth of cigars and tobacco to Bernstein, | the bill being made out in the name of his wife, Lena Bernstein, and sent to the store No, 899 Canal street, The money was due thirty days from date, and on call- ing on Bernstein he was informed that the stock was sent away to pay personal debta, and on looking around the store Mr. Miller only found about $10 worth of goods. He complained to Captain Kennedy, of the Ninth precinct, and about the same time Mr. who keeps a storage warchouse in Hudson street, Informed Captain Kennedy that a stranger had left cases and bales of & is in bis care, Detective eil, on Friday, saw Max Friedman drive up to the warehouse and take away the goods, Bernstein was foun@ following the wagon, when he and the driver re arrested. In court, yesterday, the following mer- chants made complaints:—A. R. beth street; No. 104 ny, No, 1,249 Broadwa: v5 ‘ersch Victorius Company, ‘0, 116 West street; Nathan Wise, No, 131 Bowery; A. Mamlok, No. 856 Canal street; Lichtenstein & Co., 121 Bowery. It was. stated that Solomon Cohen, of No. 47 Lispenard street, was implicated, and he was brought up before the Judge and discharged, 1t was ascertained that Bernstein would open a store in Cohen’s name, and after a while have it transferred to bisown name, After the examination, Judge Kil- dreth discharged Friedman but held Bernstein in $500 on each complaint FIFTY-SEVENTH STREET COURT. Before Judge Murray. ASSAULT ON A POLICEMAN. Thomas McMahon and ex-policeman George Whit man were arraigned on a charge of unprovokingiy as- saulting OMcer John Cottrell of the Twenty-second Pi Cottrell was on duty on Friday night on ‘igbth avenue and was {ntevtionally jostled against by the Leeched lt have had a spite against him for some time, pon resenting the prisoners’ inter- ference with him they threw him down aud McMahon beat him with a club in @ savage manner—so it is alleged. McMahon Whitman (who is a night watchman) were held fof trig! 4n_$500 bail each. ALLEGED LARCENY, ‘ circumstances, Mr. Howe respectfully urged that Dolan is entitled to such ite as would enabie his ease to be fally revi trict Attorney Phelps, who represented ¢ people, strenuously opposed the mo- fion, insisting that the conviction was most proper and big guilt manifest, and that the full General Term of the Supreme Court had unanimously disposed of the legal questions raised by the prisoner's counsel. Judge Rapallo sald that the prisoner ought certainly not be deprived of his opportunity of being heard by | the Court of Appeals by the fact of that Court having taken a recess. If, however, hé should grant a stay of proceedings, the prisoner would have to be resentenced in the event of an affirmance of the judgment Thi Judge thought that the Governor should grant such a respite as would enable the case to de properly pre sented to the Court of Appeals and duly deliberated upon by tne judges of that Court. District Attorney Phelps and Mr. Howe aequiesced tn that proposition, aud {t was then stipulated that the case should be argued on the 20th of next month, and | that Mr. Phelps uid communicate officially with | Governor Tilden, informing bim of Judge Rapallo’s | views and asking for the necessary respite. | DECISIONS. SUPREME COURT— CHAMBERS. By Judge Lawrenca Cholwell ys, Nichols.—This does not seem to con- Upulation, | Tinker; Crumbie vs Taylor.—Orders | | | } ranted. Biake vs. Bendall.—There should be a substitute service under act of 1853. Winchester New Haven Steam Saw Mill Com. any.—For what amount was the attachment issued? | Dunham and another vs. Vittsburg and Western | Company; Matter of Bogardus; Thomson va Vernam; Mooney rancis and another; Welsh vs. Flushing and North Side Railroad eed Matter of Lutheran Emigrants’ House Associatior w York and Harviora Publishing Compa ; Davis vs. Conn Roosevelt ws Liukert; Opprnheimer vs, Rogers; Gill va O'Conner; Morton vs Roberts, Remer ‘pel ; Brown va. Lyddy ; Powers vs. Matthews; Williams vs. O*Donneil; Townsead vs. Dixon; Dela mater VR. Bodine; Matier of Surrens; Alien va Thorp et al; Riker vs, Thorp; Shipman va. Ryan.—Granted. People, &c,, v& Cox.—Prisoner must give bail in the sum of $1,000, Memorandum. ' - Ansto vs Shaf.—it does not appear to what sheriff! the execution was 1ssued, Union Consolicated Mining Company vs, Baht— Should not some effort be shown to find defendant in this State? ; ' Dick va Carbey.—Report confirmed and ‘order granted. i Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. Orr.—Explana | —Undertaking approved. ( tion desired Phillips vs. Cadlij . Dinsmore vs, The Mayor, &c.—This Caan must; ve made to the Justices of the General Term. Haich va Hatch; Bach va ch. —Reports con- firmed and Jadgments of divorce granted to plaintiffs, with custody of children. Matter ot Lodge, &c.—There should bea reference. Citizens’ Savings Bank vs O’Rourke,—I see ne reason why this case should not proceed im the ordi. nary course. (See Rule 78) Matter of Evans. —Under the circumstances disclosed in the affidavit of the trustee, read in opposition to the motion, | think that this motion should be demed a that the petitioner should resort to bis action for the eniorcement of bis claim. | Hunker vs. Boorman.—I shall direct that the order de forthwith served upon the defendant's attorney, and that the examination be adjourned until March 4, at ven A. M., and that the examination then proceed Memorandum. Matter of Carter.—There must be an order. Letters — of guardianship can be given by Surrogate. fatter of Baidwin,—I chink that such party should | pay hall of the referee's fees. Matter of Tobias. —There seems to be no evidence | warranting the commitment of the prisoner, and T there/ore ber discharge, Memorandum SUPERIOR COURT—SPECIAL TERM. By Judge Sedgwick. Clark vs Brown et al, Noa 1 and 2—Report of referees confirmed, and judgment of foreclosure and sal le. MeParlan ot al. v8. McParlan et al.—Findinge settled, Archer vs. Gaude; Hasbrouke va Garde; Ross va Corbett; Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. Partin; ton et ; Sander et al ve Hoffman; Ward vs M Jer. —Orders granted, Kenny vs. Ives. —Order vacating !nquest. Sanford, &e., ve. Bari et al,; Same va Same vs, Same; Same vs. Same; Same va, Same.—Relerce’s report confirmed and judgment of foreclosure and sale, forbes ve Karle; Same va Sume; Same vs. Same.— and sale Ny Y COMMON PLEAS—SPRCIAL TERM Judge Robinson, Snyder vs. fuydee -Deares of divorce to plaintift SUMMARY OF LAW CASES. . On a bearing yesterday before Judge Robinson, hold- | | tng Special Term of the Court of Common Pieas, Mr. | Gideon L. Walker, # lawyer, committed for alleged contempt of Court, was discharged on giving an under- tak: to appet te court on next Tuesday, when the a u will be reau Lawrence. broweht to the United States under the Kx- he case of the United States against Charles 1. | pot given to the intemperate use of liquor, | forth Reseree’s report, copirmed and judgment of toreclosure | charge of stealing a horse blanket, was brought from continement yesterday to answer a charge of burglary — and having stolen a watch and money from the prem- ises No, 789 Fifth avenue on the 2d of July last, The charge resolved itscif into one of grana larceny and on that he was held in delauit of $1,000 bail, UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, Wasutnotos, Fob. 25, 1876. In the United States Supreme Court to-day the fol- lowing cases were heard:— No, 165, Piedmont and Arlington Insurance Company vs, Ewing, administrator of Howes—Error to the Cir- cuit Court for the Eastern District of Missourl.—In this cuse Howes had his life insured for $4,000, pa; part of the semi-annual premium by an adverti for the company in his paper—the People’s Tribune— ublished at Jefferson City, This was on September 1, 871; the balance was paid on the 14th of October to a sub-agent by Howes’ partner. The money reached the agent on the 16th, which was Sunday, and he on that day countersigned as of the 16th and sent tin, It turned out that Howes died on the 14th, the day on which the balance of the premium was paid The defence was that when making his application Howes had declared that he was not troubled with dys- pepsia falsely, and had also falsely stated that he was There was evidence that he had habitually used liquor, and that he died of inflammation of the stomach and intestines, as was believed. The Court instructed the jury that they were to inquire not as to the habitual use of* liquor but as to e «intemperate use of {i and that as to the question golf the disease of which Howes died, they were to“inquire whether it was chronic dyspepsia, known as a disease, and not whether from a temporary attack brought on by some indiscretion, overeating or the hke, As to the final payment the instruction was that if it was made before ‘the death of Howes, no matter how ill, and the ageot did not afterward demand the surrender of the policy and tender back the money, bis act was @ ratilicauion which bound the company. This ruling ie assigned as error, Hill, Ewing & Smith for plaintiffs in error; Fiavigan, Choras & Senrie for defendants, No, 166. Ferry vs. Tubman—Error w the Circuit Coort for the Southern District of Georgia. —Th s was an action by Tabman to make the plaintiff in error personally responsipie to him as holder of certain bills of the Bank of Augusta issued for circulation, The action was based upon a section of the charter of the | bank making the stockbosders personally liable for thi redemption of the villa The judgment was for th | holder, and it s here insisted shat personal liability did | not attack until after assignment of the bank and before the application of its asseis toward the extincuishment ofthe demand Plainwf in error im person; W. Hull for deiendant COURT OF ALABAMA CLAIMS. AWARDS ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY. Wasmiveton, Feb. 26, 1876, In the Court of the Commissioners of the Alabama Claims yesterday Judge Jewell delivered the opinion of | the Court in the cases known as the “Bonded Vessels © Cases." These vessels were whalers, and consisted of the James Maury, of New Bedford; the General Pike, of New Bediord; the Milo, of New Bedford, and the Nile, of New London, Conn, They were capturéd on she whaling ground, with others of the whaling feet, in dune, 1865; were bonded by the Shenandoah, and ordered to take on board and carry to San Francisco or to Honolula the officers and crews of the sevérai whalers thas the Shevandoab had burned; the Maury 16] men, the General Pike 222, the Milo 160, and th i2L The Principal quest involved in these cases was, what sation sha.| Se allowed to the owners and crpws ‘enforced employment of their vessels res} | tvely, and for the compulsory laber and pertl of the men. The counsel for claimants asked compensqtion | om the basis of demurrage, and the counsel for the gov- ernment suggested the allowance of compensation in the way of prices for for the men trom the piace of capture to port. But the Court in this opinion | does Not accord with enther view. Taking into vonsid- | eration the fact that the vessels were actively engaged | im their business of whaling at the very hour of cap- | ture, the opinion of the Court, after citing authority in collateral aud opposite cases, makes the following AWARDS. In the case of the James Maury, to the owners alone, | for the joss and destruction of property, $10,324, vo be divided according to the respective Interests of the | owners alter deducting insurance; and to the owners | e damage, jointly, as compensation for tor the use of the vesse) and jor the bert yd services of the officers and c Lhe sum of $16,925, to be received by the owners, interest from shi of and ‘wo be held by them as and for and in lieu of the catch | Of said vessel, and to be disiributed among the officers and crew of the said vessel in their due proportions. a se of the <encral Pike we award to the lone, for the loss and destruction of their property, and to be divided amung them according to their respective imterests, $8,021; and to the owners Jomtiy, for compulsory service of officers and crew, as sm the case of the Maur: jeu of catch, vhe owners al 8,7 e, $9,257 i, to 8 icer; No, 218 Kliza- | id Miller, No. 278 West street; T. 0. | ane strect; Bosphorus Tobacco Com- | Edward Fay, who has been in prison some time on a | and com: service of the officers and crew, tx Sect aen tee ” There were several claims’of officers and seamen, asking compensation for loss of catch or wages, pre~ sented a& the time when these principal cases were All these claims are embraced in tue equity of ‘the judgment, and each of these claimants will re ceive out of the ju m lew of catch, bis share of the amount Jon gs the court As to the lows of wages after arriving at San Francisco or Honolulu, it need only be said the men abandoned the enter prion, ye aoe gol the veraae ded, bee m Temained by their ms wit, therefore, be dismissed, obenass The following additional were al Judgments nounced:—In case Na 1,208, to Geo: T. Browm, $2,185; in No. 1,211, to dares F. Brown, $300; in Na 1,802, to Mary J. Bowen, sdministratet; a nm Na 7 to Barton 8 Mason, $420; in Nori, to Joseph B. Worth, $600; tm No. 1,238, toJoha J M tn No, 840, to Charles Homer’ and . $15,901 (Judges Wells and Rayner dissenting). The following is the judgment tn the cases of the Milo, Maury, 4, in detail:—In the Milo, Edward @ Joni 212; George H. Dunbar, $1,144; Aun H. Dum bar, William Watkina, executor, $572: Joua Q! Harris, $364, aud jointly, $16,585 Case No. 1,022— The Milo, Julius T. Shepard, executor, $1,053. Case (1,226—To James C Allyne, $337 Case 1,227—Henry P. Haven, $1,059; H P. Haven o& al. executors, $1,059; Sarah A Stoddard, excoutrix, $396; A. G. Doagiasa, $396; Henry P. Haven, execu $337, Alexander F. $361, Moses H, Grinnel Frente ore vointly, ‘S10508,” Cave 8 tileta, $515, and jointly ‘ i. (The James Maury)}—To C, R Tucker et al, $4,334; kd D. Mandell, administrator, $1,290; ; Henry A. Barling et al, executora, sak and jointly, $16,925, Caso 826 (The Gener Pike)—To Charles H. Gifford ot al., executors, $1,413; Charles H. Gifford, $645; Jona P. Gifford, $332; Johm F. Jackson, administrator, $155; Jonathan Power, Pa Charles R. Tucker, administrator, $155; Isaae . Giflord, $1,115; Edw: Tucker, $255, and joinuly 18.730, Cases dismissed ander the opinion of the urt in the ener inane Ci al 1300, ningham complainant; lebron M. Crowell; 1. Antonio Silva; 673, Richard P, Buker; 1,143, Joum Joseph; 1,147, ‘John F. Hawes; 586, C. Hawes; 871, Augast G. Jenny; 1,240, Manuel R. de Silva; 1,241, George de L, Nalio; 1,376, Moses H. Grinnell, OTHAR CASES. The following cases were then presented to the Court upon the evidence and oral argument of counsel:—Nos 1,244, Domingo Mackodoze vs, The United Statos; Joba Pomeceno Dovall va The 246, Thomas Lockhard va case dismissed; 1,300, John HL. Smith vs. The United States, submitted on the ears 1,301, Eligha B, Handy vs. The United Stat smissed’, 1,310 John B. Hussey et al. va The Uni States, case dismissed, as being too remote; 1,343, Ellen M. Partridge vs.’ The United States, partially argued on demurrer by Charles C. Beaman and te third call; 1,349, Isaac Mitchell va. ntted States, submitted on papers; 1,350, James Chris- tian va United States, submitted 01 pers; 135i Wiliam Young va United States, submitted om papers; I, Manuel de Ramos vs. United States, sub- mitted’ oh papers; 1,358, Joseph K. Sylva vs, Caited Stated, submitted on Ceara 1 Jemima W. P. Reck vs United States, submitted on papers; 1,379. Leopold Morse vs, United States, submitted on evidence and argument of counsel Charles G Beaman, for com- plainants. In No, 1,379 John A. J. Creswell sppeeres for the United States; in all the others Frank W. Hackett ap- eared. af Case 48, Louise Snow et al., reargued by Charles O Beaman, Jr., for complainants, and J. A. J. Creswell for the Unived States, MUNICIPAL NOTES. Several of the statesmen from Albany visited the City Hall yesterday and gave their version of “how things look.” Colone! Wiiliam T. Pelton, nephew of Governor Tilden, called upon Mayor Wickham fre- quently during the past week. The Committee om | Rumors is again busily engaged in sending out peculiar statements, but the local political situation remaing about the same as last reported. Next week‘we are Promised a visit from a legislative committee to ex amine into the affairs of the office of Attorney for Collection of Arrears of Personal Taxes. now presided over by Mr. BE. D. Gale. The republicans are after Mr. Gale’s scalp, as a dill is now pending before the Legis- lature to abolish the posttion altogether and merge it with the duties of Receiver of Taxes. Comptroller Green and Corporation Counsel Whitney have both been ill for several days past. The Comp troller will be at his office as usual to-morrow. Local political prophets around the Hall assert posh tively that Messrs O’Donohue, Williamson and Martim will be removed trom the Park Commission, placing this department under the sole charge of Mr. Stebbina Of course these gentlemen favor the bill now before the Logisiature thus summarily disposing of the three Commissioners. The question of the Brooklyn Bridge appropriation of $2,666,666 66 will come up belore the Board of Alder men at ite next meeting. It is understood that the Democratic State Conven- tion for the election of delegates to the Presidentii { Coarenees will be held in Albany about the 1é.b Apr’ EC tall report of the evidence taken before the As sembly Committee on Crime, Pine tell 0 over 3,008 satan, just been printed by the National paating . blished in book form, mpany and is about to be pul Such testimony is very interesting and embodies a ‘Yast amount of information concerning nearly all the city departments. The committee proposes to order @ distribution of a namber of copies for the use of the city government and Legisiature, It will prove usefulas@ book of reference, Efforts have been made in certaim interested quarters to suppress the publication, but It is hoped the Committee on Crime will not listen to any such suggestions. Should the Croton Water Bureau be detached from | the Department of Public Works, the main of Tammany Hall in this city provisions of the Dill proposing so annex this burem ‘to the Finance Department BUSINESS TROUBLES. Fisher Brothers, dealers in hardware, of No, 238 Third avenue, have made an assignment to E. A. Davia, Messrs, Fairfield & Trask, of No, 150 Chambers. street, who were robbed some time ago by their book- keeper to the extent of about $40,000, have gone into voluntary bankraptey. Their liabilities will amount to about $70,000, and their assets about $12,000, At the second meeting in composition of the creditors of Alexander Stein, furniture manufacturer, to inquire into the regularity of the proceedings of the first meet ing, held yesterday, at the office of Register Fitch, Na. $45 Broadway, such an opposition was developed that Mr. Stein withdrew his offer of composition, and the 7th day of March next, at ono o'clock P. M., was fixe@ _ a the register for holding an adjourned first meeting of creditors for the election of an assignee. The bank- | rupt is now ander examination. , } | A meeting of the creditors of Funk & Steinhardt was held yesterday, at the office of Register Dayton, Na. 322 Broadway. Mr. Steinhardt offered to pay ten cents on the dollar, cash, on all his individual share of the indebveduess of the frm. His offer was accepted by , the requisite number of creditors A meeting of the creditors of Isaac Nebenzahl & Mon. tague 3. Marks was held yesterday at the office of Register Allen, No. 152 Broadway. The composition proposed was fifteen cents on the dollar—five bat cash and ten cents in indorsed notes. The meeping adjourned till next Saturday aiternoon, at two o’clock, without taking any action’ regarding the proposition, and the examination of the bankrupte will go on Georges Floyd filed g petition in voluntary | Tuptcy yesterday, and the matter was referred by Judge Blatchford to Register Alien, Mr. Floyd's prim- cipal creditor is Jacob Pinkerton, of Syracuse, to whom _ he is indebted to the amount of $1,937 93 The following insolvent schedules were filed yestet - john Jamison—Liabilities, 627; nominal assote, $12,700; actual assets, rt a ’ James and Joseph H. Smith—Liabilities, $4,084; ominal assets, $2,458; actual assets, $1,800, ; John G. Nehrbas—Liabilities, $842; nominal asseta, $194; actoal assets, $194. Mr. R. W. King, an operator on the Stock Exchanga, | failed yesterday. He sent to the board a letter ex- pressing his inability to meet his contracts in the i a morning. It was supposed that Mr. Goald’s manipa- lations of the market had caused Mr, King to suc cumb, The gentleman involved is ember of t Stock Exchange of long and honorable standing. a there was universal regret, his misiortune. His lim bilities were understood to be small. THE LABOR MARKET. The Castle Garden Labor Exchange, which since the ‘Ist of July last has been under the joint management of the German and Irish emigrant societies, has during the past year maintained its usefulness as @ means of procuring employment for emigrants of all classes and Bationalities to the number of 12.440—namely, 7,008 men and 5,452 women. Among the men 1,170 were peng as mechanics, and the balance as farm or other laborers. Of the women 188 were engaged am cooks and seamstreases, and the remainder as ordinary house servants. Among the applicants were seventy> seven families, bering 244 persous | A CONFIDENTIAL CLERK ARRESTED. | Adier A. Muller, confidential clerk for the past tem: | Years with James E Ward & Co., ehipping merchants, at No 113 Wall street, was yesterday arrested by » Deputy Sherif! McGonigle on an order granted by = Sedgwick, of the Superior Court It is claimed ) by the firm that Muller while wn their emp! em bezzed some $12,000, Lt ts aiso alleged im the vit. that the defendant acknowledged having tak ), 000, He was held to bail in the iatier amount, and, in fault thereot, locked up in Ludiow Street Jail, WANTED TO GO TO JAIL. John Woods was arrested and locked up in the Fourth Precinet police station, Jersey City, on Friday night, for creating digturbances in several parts of the district. | When arrested be had a poker in his hand and chale | lenged the officer to fencing exercise, The weapon was | | and to the owners joiatiy, for the use of the vessel ) taken from him and ne was ao soonet in the. and compulsory services of the officers and crew, in | celi than he Kicked the door vigorously. en asked Meu of catch, $16,586, what he had to say he replied that ie was a commoa In the case of the Nile, to the owners alone, $8,250, and to the owners jointly, for tha use of the vessel loafer and wanted to be sans to jail Uli the weathes should grow warmer,