Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1858-01-11

! individual estates. Mr.. Withers, instead oil
giving such security to the Board, executed
q deed 10y which he conveyed his visible
property in and near Alexandria, his pro-
perry at Cumberland in Maryland, and his
property 10 ST. Louis, Missouri, to secure the
notehoders and depositOrs, some Of whom
had attached previous to the execution OF
the deed.
Mr.. Selden professed his readiness to give
deed, but insisted, Mr.. Wlthcrs was prl-
marilv bound to the board.
As | understood the controversy between
his partners, it involved the condition OF the
frm at the time of Mr.. Selden's sale to Mr..
Whiting. Mr. WtherS insisting, as | un-
derstOod, the firm was then unsOund and IN
solyent-Mr. Selden insisting 1t was then
sound and solvent, and that Mr.. Wlthers
was bound by the agreement to indemnify
him.
While Mr.. Selden professed his willing
ness to pledge his whole estate to the lHdem-
nifty of tue board, yet he insisted that his
pledge was to be subsequent to and auxiliary
to Mr.. Wlthers, whose estate he insisted
should be first pledged.
advised the board, Messrs. S2lden and
Wilhers were both bound for the debt.
The question between them was one which
the board could not settle or interfere with;
and as no deed was made suits and at
tachments should be resOrted to. Negotla-
tons continued up to the time the deed was
executed.
But the board had commenced proceedings
in New York against persons who 1t was
supposed held these bonds on pledges made
by Selien, WIther5 & Co. for funds advanced
for the private use and benefit Of Selden,
Wthcrs u Co.
These suits were commenced on the ground
that the pledge Of Mcssrs. Selden, Withers
& Co. Of the bonds of the board for their
debts was a breach of trust, and did not
change the property of the board in these
bonds or debts so pledged, and they were
still the property OF the board, and by proper
proceedings to be taken under the New lOrk
laws, the negotiations of the bonds might be
stopped and recovered for the state. But as
Solder, Wthers & Co. would render no &c
count Of the special dispositions they had
made Of the bonds Of the state, and give no
information Of tue use made OF the bonds
evidently misapplied, the proceedings OF the
board in New York were necessarily taken
in the dark.
The board were not apprised of the long
continued mlsapplicatjon Of tine D1nds-and
from the best lights they could obtain and
the large amount Of the proceeds Of the bonds
unaccounted for, believed these bonds had
recently been disposed of. Seden, Wthers
& Co. represented the pressure on them as
the result of panic, and the belief was,
that to meet the emergency of their business
in this panic, the bonds had been recently
pledged.
The proceedings in New York to arrest
the sale Of the bonds believed 70 be thus
pledged, was a necessary proceeding. 1t may
be that persons who had loaned money to
Selden, Wthers s Co., became alarmed at
these proceedings, and refused indulgence,
and forced the sales OF the collaterals, but it
NAV also be that On the failure OF the firm, the
same course would have been pursued.
Even If these proceedings did force sales
and thus produce losses on the collateral
securities, such losses were the necessary re-
suit of the course taken by Selden, Withers
& Co. in misapplying the funds in their hands,
and refusing information of the disposition
made of the large amount Of bonds for which
they were defaulters.
About the time thase proceedings we're com
menced, Seden, Withers q Co. made their
deed conveying their social assets. \ copy
Of this deed | send.
II will appear the scheme Of S,lden, With
ers & Co. was carried out in tins deed. That
all their assets were transferred TO their ere
ditors, except the Chesapeake and Ohio canal
bonds, and these if taken by the state, must
be held for several years before they could
be sold The rlE1t Of the board to any pOr
ton Of the assets was not specially provided
for; and the question whether the board was
entitled to the surplus was left to legal CON
struction.
The only remedy left 10 the board was
sui, against the private partners, and to set
aside the deed ~ fraudulent.
Before the board instituted its suit, Mr..
Withers, as the result of an interview
sought with lin, agreed to convey in trust
t. secure the board the property he had con-
veyed to secure nOtehOlders ana uerositOrs
and TO apply in addition the sum OF $50 600
to relieve that property from attachments
issued against it,
The board was apprised Of this agreement
and it was after several interviews between
Mr. B0cock and Mr.. Withcrs, consummated
by Mr.. Bocock.
Mr.. SeIden continued to profess lis will
ingness to convey his property to secure the
debt but insisted Mr.. Withers, being prima.
rily bound, must first convey his property;
and if be (Seden) regarded this as a proper
and sufficient conveyance, he (Sgiden) would
afterwards convey his. This being a ques-
ton between hcssrs. Scden and Withers,
the counsel of the board declined any action
OF advice, but insisted both were bound to
make full cOnYcyances.
Mr.. Selden called to his aid two gentlemen
of as high character as any in Virginia, and
determined to act by their advice.
Mr. Withers made his deed. Mr.. Selden
by the advice Of his friends, refused to make
deed, on the ground that they did not re
gard the deed of Mr. Withers as a sufficient
and proper conveyance.
The counsel OF the board, after weighing
the subject, determined 10 accept the deed OF
! Mr.. Withers, and advise the board not to in.
| stitute suits at the present, but not in any
way to agree to torbear or tie up their hands
I from proceedings against Mr.. WItbcrs and
Mr.. SeIden.
The ground Of this advice WAS that at the
estimates then made OF the value OF the social
! fund, the property conveyed by Mr.. Wlthers
would ultimately secure the debt. But even
| if this should turn out otherwise, the private
estates of the partners would readily and
] thlt, RI hnr nab ha