New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-28
.o,er .al b. scs ,eees Their AOu.s .. r.,,o Ian. -

ug IL us probable taat ia u,ssisr ssa be kslsa
rBE cEB-i0RAEi 70 JU,TIog wSLsa.
Icor the tetufr a. ,ce VIII gTss'sd Ia tass sseo
y-.tercsg NJ Ssdss.ek Ass,S NJ Distf & Ats AZ
eDp-sle ~ IT, J1stl.. snt Ar. Jsmsr ". Uasr
~ G%,rs. Bo~Te tle i'c'oBcr. sac IS held tss~
ever A. A. dic ulett for osO.pg sfSgcd oaecs.
Tss Just &c isusrss Il az BoE,se wss cp7ai! De-
sctsfs. q psssirg n cs,ck Pdreodeg to bss sust
by EI.Recsider Tiiol, wbic. ~ss asorge'y.
Coue sel for tbs .ocused askei fct hs eScasrgs %
u" srt1na taAE theie va no poor Oh saA'y Aa's~
eeae.
Judge Irershstn dstiea the spplcsise. The de-
'.tdsH csaree tses mo gsc thsi tas o+i es reSSeo
tom S'~ot t. 81 $40. ras judge rcsstvea ~ d.
cisco.
Jszes GAaip. Prosseat se. >st The ou.n:i Bsst ssG
oll.u-
The plaintiffs clam il this oAss Il for sb,us 81 ~.
Ire pr, pety heid by tae Bsk snd whoa sas pisAs-
tits Rave acquired exceeds in vce so Ooo fo< wa,ss
/. was transferred for secaIity. Tue eixna
indebtsdreos for Which 1t vs % ksas-
fcrred is cot denied in scy wAy ~
peschsd by tee paint n in his ccmps'ot, but BY tse
I1iuI c.or . the property is included and tee Onaass
Bsrk ia To bedsn nom receiving o, cosiecing ssV
part CT 1t. CT aly man e rcSssirg the notes - ~
bccoEe cue.
Such an il junction appears to ME to create grsstsr
wrorg teen II il intended to reW.dy. The pOpery
Gained uICer any coe Of the inves.ineots vncs see
ccup.sLt ss,ks ~ set aside would be msre thsA saG
fotnt the plaintiff, it secufty ecsssscy
As nety cen the parties TO theee investments ssa-
ceIeo that tley valid, snd tha tue Btnk wsx4
have right to payment VI beus indeotsdsess frso
the property trsrsieret and yet BY this acaea
al suci payments prohbitea and the whole prop
etty IS thus ep med. When any one va mws Aso
sufficient for the purpose. IL rnsy he said test tae
psLt q was eot Assured Of success IN regaS % eeea
ccuyeysrce and therefore Included Al withia the 10
IL, o..ol Bat such re.son Is against fathcf 0ss -
favor OF its cCntlousrce.
Tie plaintiff should be assured OF success ectors 10
thus esrsn. another from payment OF iniseetss'c
cue hin, srd should rot tnus erdMget isrge smsaS
q property by preventing the colscson ct notes $50
Other IL detkeGn.ss for the purpose OF obtaining ~.
utIt II small ciaun. sucn use OF this wnt " -
ur ction appears 10 ne uIwsrrsnted.
The conveyaDces Of tie real estate are stated = esc
complaint ~ have bsen made 10 secure $lS,UW en4
the convey Of the personal property show - ~
face that they were intended to secure up Sard -
so COO. No allegation is made as to the sosveaeg q
the Oriental Bauk, any doubt expressed - -
their ability TO respond there should bs ~
| coveiy against the bank.
So fsr, therefore, % relates to the bssk ses -
reesor for etoicing them trom collecting tbs profC0
ane applying tie proceeds 10 tseM sepsyass% p;sss
cover this action will be esdiy PAID ~ tue -
| fent snts under the jucgment OF tors Curt wtseO
,he injunction With II, while the continuance - u
rsy work serious injuries TO all the parties
Ihe INJUNCTION is ia way recesssry to the usiese.
rsrce CT the plaintiffs rights; he is IN no danger -
sustaining ureparsble, or a. far ss can ses' ~ -
iuIy il il is continued ana under such state u tseo
tee ufe of this writ is neither wise nor expec,n -
Tor AS there nsy be surplus IN tire pssessi OF tso
Oriental Bark, It may be proper to teeu e
tsin such surplus until toe decision OF TINS csss.
10 auy Other portion of the property, better sses
il sboud be converted into cash, snd ths atsrseA
which otherwise would accumulate be reduced. saAa
by the continuance of tre injunction 70 add 10 -
| amo INT of tie inc ettedness.
I DO mot eeem il necessary 10 discuss tho pstslD
urged by the plaintiffs counsel on this qucssiI ~
aid TO the meeger Of the securities originally hsts
| the bank. As between the Parties II was ooncssse
hanA a
arces opeI sted for the same purpose AS TO me zee
tf Il uust also be cedsd to DO immatsra sscAsc
the eurp!us II property is more than smp sa Ases
to pay the piantn II II shall DO neo inst NO Ass -
rgnt to recover.
THE Injunction must be dissolved, except 50 fer -
TO require the Oriental Ban. to retain all moaeys ~
ctiy.d from TIE property OF the defendant Bell ovr
and above the amount necessary to pay too 10 tebte
of Bell to the bank. Costs OF this motoa 70 ssa4e
| event
The Aechsric. Fire Insurance Co ct al De- 0root ct 4.
90 rot propose 20 examine the questions raised ~
the ain ds OF proceedings for toe nppunta tassk
| Of a receiver, because 1t appears to ms that thsse
questions caLIOt DO made ava Alabie IN the prosest
acton.
The Co,rt had jurisdiction Of the sahect matter q
these proceedings, aid had power to dissolve tess ose
porstion ana 10 sppOnt receiver Haung oeS
power ard having the defendants within their Junsee
Ion 20 to exercise them the pos ser coafsrse4
| by law Any lrregulariiy in the exercise OF thsee
powers only be reviewed III the proceedings -
which that irres sulsrity eJists.
Whether Therefore, the proceeding sets forth il -
| sppl alton to the Court saiiic en- 10 wArsat 80
Court in entertaining tho application, or whssef tec
PIC eh0uld be by acton or oy pevuoa, arc ~
questlois which be rsised c0llateraily.
Anott er why am of opinion that tAsss nse,
tiers csrnot be reviewed in the present action id sas
the same have been scjcdicsted by this Court u -
original proceeding, TO which the company ID p9V
directly, and to which also the other plsatifs vsse
psres by being stock holders and officers Of tas oso-
pany. Is Abbott, ~
As between the parties to that proceedos tho whsse
ma tor Is adJTdicotd, and can only be reveve4
on appeal ~ TO the third peIsons ID the decsia q
one brsr ch Of this Court affirmed by the gsascse
term and therefore controlling any decisoa may -
called upo 10 make On similar questions.
Something has been said ebou, allowing t1s oeur
psny TO revive ts powers and csrry on again the bae
ness of insurance. IL is sufficient In answer 70 thst
to say tn It such permission can DO obtained u ts1
action. Upon payment Of the debts OF the coupssr
the receivers powers are at sn end. Until taas =
dore see no relief in this Court but by an apes
to tho Court Of Appeals FROM the decision OF tho se-
elal term.
Whatever may be my view Of the questions sss'
rsy disguised or OF the regularity Of the process
ipgs feel compelled to follow the views hsresosses
exprersed by this Court The motion for a ,njuhe-
tion is denied.
Foster az Hitler e. a. stocswe1 ast- fbs Ssus
There is nothing in the ples6ngs that sho ~ ~
property was taken for q tax Whether It w0 OF -
would be inlnsteral # il were not the property -
Psrdue in bis pose ssicn at tie tire OF the lew
Hiler swesis il was IN tbs possession OF Psfdss 9
the tine Il the levy. Psrdus swears thse Il ~ s:e
his properly and when taken by Hitler vas not n ~
II il apparent from tho eli dsvib that this v .
doubtful question; that it is directly invaveo -
nerits CT the defense a1d ought NOT 70 oo H'es "
cided On sHicsvits. ~
Whe,ter stranger not taxed 10 70 be hnPpsd -
bis property 10 psy the tax Of thDd psI.s; msssv
'stv !. hi. nor ssssion and then be told hs hAs -
fecf, 70 except such ts car Obtain from "a
sbIs agent e q question Of some moment, wAisA !
sho nd hesitate about answering in the sfafmstvs. Il
Is rot bowever necessary for the decision OF sesce
motors 10 decide that point. TIE sesstoas OF h.
her ave denied BIZ PaIcua, and the p0tony % tAAs