New-York daily tribune., 1857-04-20
LAW NTELLIGENCE
INTERESTING To MERCHANTS.

INTERESTING TO MERCHANTS.
SUPREME cOURT-s'senL rsss-A'sn H-Bee~e
Judge MireHELL
PAUL sPorroRp's OLD PARTNER CLAIMING $6oo, ooo---
IyJrScrioN.
Paul sposord sgt. Amos NJ. Hatch.
This case is of great interest 10 the mercantiS
community, inasuuch ss 1t concerns one OF our most
prominent merchants whose property is. attempted
to share with former partner. The general facts Of
the case are a. follows
In 1877 -lS the plaintiff and defendant entered into
partnership in the boot and shoe business in Hsverhl.
Mass. The arrangement, either made a; the outset o.
speediy thereafter was that Mr. Hatch should remain
in Haverhil selling and consgning goods to Mr.. Spot
ford who was 10 act commission merchant IN th,s
city, In 1923 Mr.. Hatch came on 10 New-fork. and
they soon engaged in different branches of business;
but there WAS no formal dissolution of the partnership.
Mr.. Spofford went growing richer and richer, and
Mr. Hatch poorer and poorer, until in 1876 he was de-
clared bankrupt.
In lsi7 the present defendant filed bill in the late
CouI of Chancery against the present plaintiff for an
account under the partnership, founded upon an In
.trument under seal, dated in 1929. An answer was
pu, in. but the suit was discontinued in November.
1853.
While still pending the plaintiff therein. Mr..
Hatch commenced an action of account at common
law in a Connecticut court by serving summons upon
Mr. Spofford. rs he was on his way to Boston tn tbs
New-Haven cars. The copsrtnership agreement was
the basis Of this as Of the other suit and the damages
claimed $500, 0OO
The complaint in the present suit ia filed TO compel
the surrender and cancellation of the INSTRUMENT on
which the plaintiff in the action Of account relies
necessary part of the relief asked is injunction
restraining the prosecution of any suit based on tho
instrument in question A preliminary injunction 10
that effect has been granted and the present motion u
to dissolve it, Some very important questions OF Law
are involved which it ia unnecessary to state in detail.
Butler Evarts & Southmayd, and F. B. Cutting. tor
plaintiff; Carpenter & Beach, John Graham and Geo.
| Wood, for defendant.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT CoURT-April a-Bsfare
Judge NELSON.
Graham agt. Meyer Stncken.
The details of this have already appeared to
som. extent in The TRIBUNE Capt. John Graham
some time 400 was the owner of the two steamers the
United States and the st. Lawrence. He became In
yolved TO some extent in building another-the Ocean
Bird--and borrowed hundred thousand dollars OF
Never & Stucken, brokers' the three steamers,
giving a. il rather customary in such cases. bill OF
sale ~ security and receiving an agreement TO re-
deem the vessels if he paid $l2O,W0 within four
months. There intermediate parties TO cover tho
usurious nature of the transaction. Mr.. Graham AS
serts that he barganed 10 sell the Ocean biru for
1850 COO but could not obtain her delivery from Meyer
Stucken who have since sold the three steamers 70
parties in Cuba for, they say, less than {2OWo
Mr. Graham flies bill for relief in equity IN tbs
United States Circuit Court having been driven out Of
the Superior Court the ground that that Court can
have no jurisdiction over Consuls. Mr. Stucken
Consul OF the Kingdom Of Hanover, and Con-
sui for the Port of Newiork of the Grand Duchy ot
SaNt-WemGr
Tire question WAS brought up on Saturday, an
| order for the argument of tte point:
plies the transaction set forth in the bill the statute doss
pnraDt proceeds further and asks to have the property
restored be must not offer 10 pay the sum actually loaned With
lawful interest.
Messrs. Cutting and q Conor appeared for tho COM
plainant; Messrs Lane, Dean and Brady for the de-
PENDANTS.
The defense demurred 10 the bill the ground that
il asked for too much and that il the law of New-York
governed this Court in this then there was no Ju-
nsdctiOn, because the party had rrInedy at law.
The dcmuPer argued at some length, and at the
conclusion of the argument, the complainant moved
for a wrt OF ere0t ayeung that Dir. Meyer was al
ready out Of the country, and Mr.. Sucken making
preparations to leave with his family The affidavit
vi Mr. Stucken read in answer, admitting the es-
senta facts but declaring that he should return soon
that he had sold the steamers for Sl9l so S5 whereof
$94 793 8 in notes. 500 } ~ in cash, and that he
had paid and would have 10 pay their account very
nearly That sum--tha in any event the finn Of Meyer
& S,ucken responsible for much larger amouft
than rhe sum clamed-$39S, 900. Mr.. Cutting sup
ported the motion ON the ground that some security
was for the payment Of the money IN case
of decision, and pointed out many suspicious cncurn-
stances in the alleged sale of the steamers Mr. Dean
responded, contending that this not case for
ne Great and that If il was this Court had no Jufsdic-
ton in the matter. Only the Supreme Court, he said,
could take cOgnizunce of cases in which the nights OF
Consus affected, according 10 the second section
of the third article Of the Constitution:
In all cases saetins Emba.sado. Other gqDe asi'ts. ,
Supreme Court shall have original juTi'dietion"
That jurisdiction he contended, necessarily ex.
elusive Curtis's Commentaries l5D-S9-b0 They
were not however he said, confined TO the Consttu-
tionsl argument Even if the Constitution conferred
on Congress the ht TO vest this power in any court,
Congress had vested il only in the District Courts.
Sec. 9 Of the Judiciary act gave the District Courts
jurisdiction Of all suits against Consus or ViceCon-
suls exclusively. While, therefore, they denied the
power of Congress TO confer this power on any other
than the Supreme Court, yet II II had conferred any
such power, il had only upon tho Distinct Cours
The ease will be continued on 'luesday
THE SCHUYLER rRAUDs AGAIN.
Alexander A. Poeruv AT. Tn. New York and New Have
Railroad Company, and Clark, Dodge 70 ayt Inc s~mr
These carer grow out Ut the Schuyler frauds Ibe
plaintiffs who are citizens and residents OF tins Ste,
ue the defendants as residents and citizens Of Con
necticut 10 recover the value Of stock issued ny
Robert Schuyler.
The defendants, in their plea, deny thatthe Company
wa properly served with process, the summons hsV-
ing been served upon VIM. Dement, Treasurer, al uie
Company : office in this city.
The plaintiff. reply that the laws Vi New York Stst
are such 10 make the Company inhabitants VI Uni
State.
r, this replication the defsndane dsrnur, on th
ground that Il states the plaintiffs out ot Court ~
.L ,bo.e whom they sue citizens Of this State, aud
NOT Of Connecticut and that therefore both parties
being citizens of the same State, United otoeS
Cour, hs, no jurisdiction. Ii il falls within tho juris-
dicon ihe suit viii doubtless be carried up TO fhs