New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-11-12


Be e'stutd by III tern. Of The trust deed and an:es
a. pr, sS ps Is on o. IL 1 S sfs he
CREDITOR paic f contained express trust fs Ne
n,c Of ilt I'm ea'irs y ard tasnioIe wholly 'osS
The question does not, in terms create any
,ssA nsst 1t no, therefore within tho prohibition OF s,
ne A,'sner 70. pHvie r in H. hsys been made VIII
~. 49, ~ saossh an 'usl honest n,eai Be conceded
s. far an se'u ,en, to defrsaa /. involved in this raotio.
dst'a - AZ ~ ihe eStrinc fact. which lere
s,dsFee Of H. tS' 81 tss kuPe. Of this motion, mus, ,.
. bi: ju.i l,tne. Belden. ard tie HsrbeSks
% & asso e sS,B % r o. +. S:S Of . .s
bis Whole poprry ops n'oeen' TO pay Of his credit
crsSoI he 50 assigns t. good a,S without any in;sat
20 defrsud any er.Hio - 'Gea an asnmen' void metsiy
.urplu. sny there BE- 70 his other creditors, a. sr o.
. 10 oe S,S I'd nno, heTr tia, the ,s =, ~ asssr.y
,he any 'ouehins the question
E,s view be correct, then it follows hs, whether the
ssrnent be fraudulent depends upon The ia.n
sich made All fraudulent intent being denied BY n.
.n,uer. and the being necessarily void
It's .e the equities Of tie plaintiff fully aenea By thesn
swsr and the motion should bot be grated - mater
In Ills connection il msy be remarked that doe.
dm tbe face Of alone that Huntington bad other creditor.
than those whom it provides msu assign sl has
property Ia nav si ~. CREDITOR
IN order 10 sssa the ,nment therefore,
srcmr Tor chps IT, it becomes necessary aese extrin
M cf. as Tia, ,hrrr werc creditors does pro-
vide snd other extriu facts be evidence VI
FRAUDULENT Eneu These may be repealed BY showios tina, a
property snsucent the ere f:ors Pno'ded
for and hst such vss in tact me estimate which 70, ps pa,
upon when the assignment made This ac' would seem
ieP a presumption Of an actual intent 10 efit
be obvious hnk tina, this assignment void is
made with actual intent TO desand ses
SOLELY BY reason Of matters appearing on It's lace.
ors OF voidshe al their suit il would be sa.wer
tue motion in which Bishop sole plaindd 60 thai
rsS Dor any mere s..snee appointed BY Huntington without
the order Intervention Of Court Il in scondon 70 ssssh
cannot b" 'aed assignment Of realty and OF evssc
fs.nsl poP5ty Excerpt by creditor who has scssers S
Aud TO sch chose" in seton the execution. mus. have ben
rp1ned nr1 bond e'Ds such sn seton cen ce
R sSL North An Fire ms Co sst Graham. Sand. ~
they hsye valid Judgment and an execution which has been
issued uPon IT, duly returned them standing in
defed it declaring The S'sn@eS, to a.sy void either Sr
, ns Ss 5Ssmss 70 SS "a ' the s
There certainly obstacle their recovering such jas
ton to avoid the assignment alsey by The ec that
Bishop holds general Which he s sees Hnn % mp
The judamsnt 10 in way connected with The s,.ign
m.n Bishop II is not upon the trusts s' tn. latet
assignment and not confessed % aid IT, or to b. wed II that
Nor DO any improperly mcousruity in The Beden'
csPsuee by bishop and insisting that T. contrary 70 their own
then the Co, should deue the second assign
Valid sud direct the debtors property TO b. distributed
In a, in which answer n,crpo,ei the coar, may
and embraced within 'heissue. (Code. z 275l
would be consistent; with thc male by the latter COM
plant declare the first assignment void II would be con-
'iten with the made BY the compliant aud embraced
NAV result proyins the ape execution and sccpanee
assignment dudee that the debtors proper passed
les All Isht to any such rsf must be oyeden by
abstract pncip. that the first ASST snment Is valid and not
fraudulent asns, the second assignment and sad
ccp leg, process the suit Of creditor having
EBut whether Ills las not the first a..snment,
fraudulent ay he set aside the instance OF Judgment an
In order dispose Of this motion 70 the
udqm, confessed 10 the plaintiffs would BE- SCI ASIDE on mo-
lion conforming to the requirements OF the Code
think the "oion n the first suit should be dened ON .n
In the second suit should be denied the following
srounds which would equally applicable to the hr.t
suit brought By party having legal standing Nourf.
which would cna6s bin 2 question mi v ysSy , BY
anything appearing on its face, and irrespective oil eAns
p All the esmic fact. alleged evidence Of an actual
fraudulent intent fully met by the answers oil the do
g. Thee nothing aics against the n,es opacity %
no asuoe and there Tie slightest ground lot doubling
pe Will The assignee should not be restrained from convert.
rom distributing jndgIu-r IN these srons.
% or yv a. t coST y' eT S anu apply "
Athoueh he defcnd.ns state in their an,wer that the
assigned pay they do state ,ho facts out Of which
rors their sonnt name There may Therefore possibly
surplus. II so. would go to the second assignee assuming
The plaintiffs may establish the nvsdty Of the first sssisu
Notwithstanding the denial this mott OF the
allie ed to show actual fraud The pTe'ents
many questions that novel; The first assignee 10 point Of
time clerk his codefendant But though competent
and Irsponsb the his being thus situated In
uccon with tie other features peculiar To the case seems
motions they seek to restrain the Rssmee from
vtrtus the estate into money but providing that shall NOT
BE- disposed Of until the further Court unless bond
BE- gy,n by lin aud bis coendants Including Uonhngtonl
in penalty of 5000 conditioned To 10 each Panh such
shall ultimately snd TO account Tor the prop
person OF persons such the Court By
order Judgment in either or both actions shall ultimately
by Justice Of this Court each Of whom shall Justify in $4,000
functions heretofore ss,sS .r ., SisehHsed
NoTrcE.-A special calendar of short causes will be
prepared for the fourth week ~ the present Trial Trm 10 b.
taken up on Monday, the 24ih inst
Fer tie purpose Of selecting placed such spe
G1s%ss The e,"f cps. @ be '1s On rs1n r, the
| the present week, Nov. II, at II o'clock g. m.
| -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COr'RT-Noy lO.-Befors
Judge Belts
DECISIONS IN ADMIRALTY.
| We have already printed short notes Of the follow
| ing deosons which print in full:
| Jsmcs H. Gilmore ast. The Steamboat Aida
By the Count The action is by the assignee Of .
provision dealer ship chandler for bill Of supplies Furnished
II and 49, No Of credit Stipulated, bat the ssus
re,ise Gsween the paItie, wA to pay these bill. monthly
down fhe nd'on River daily except Sunday between New
The nbeIant on the pa Of September fled his .peefoaon
lien charging purchases by the boat The dates above
toned and setting forth the prices and amoun,. aud on the
18th fled bis libel IN this the entire amount
On the hearing he claims the right 10 the whole
,un Of lie b OF he items sHd The claimants deny his lien at
Jh' HIeant objects 10 the sdDSsby u the latter point
| Of defense h.caua.. not formally pleaded.
Held. J. Tie existing lien Law of March a. 1885 Laws
49, 'ess eh TO- no IS Ieenseiment, with sniendmens "
TLe lien enacted by the act fully determined and CONS
to the port where he dot wa. rae'ed Ja in reality that