The penny press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1859-1860, 1859-10-15
LAW REPORT.
supBRroR ooURr.

VERDIor.-In the case Of Dunseith vs.. The
Owners Of the Steamboat Mars. Tried before Judge
hoadiy to recover for pilots wages. The jury re-
APPLi9 ,T1os TO DISMISS AN sArTAoHnENT.--McC
re- Key 70. Harris Judge Spencer disposed Of motion
issued on the 5th Of October. From an examination
Of the writ appeared that the Sheriff had attached
stock ef drugs and the fixtures In the store lately
occupied by dant on the corner Of Fourth and
Main -streets-and that the property had been sp-
@ T. was Issued on the ground s
fraudulent disposition Of his proper3 this aliega.
ton being predicaed the facts claimed to exist by
the plsinti and stated as follows: That defendant
that when called on By the agent Of plaintiff after
various pretexts and promises of settlement, he
an as Ss soS out the
hs SON. and refused to give satisfaction in regard 70
The defendant In his affidavit states that nearly
so0o OF his wife's money was invested In the busi-
ness all of which secured by notes given to her
brother as trustee that In September be (Hsrris)
posed to give plaintiffs agent lMr. Newel) two Of
the notes. either as security or In payment but that
Finally, he transferred the stock to his son, NJ. q.
claim. Pa
parties state that defendant had communicated to
them In business way, that the establishment was
carried on with funds Of his wife.
was proper (remarked the Court for the agent OF
plaintiff to make inquiry In the circumstances Of the
sale, he beings creditor and to learn what expecta-
tions he might Justly have Of payment The infor-
tainly the sale entire stock without any appa.
rent showing Of its pr0priety improperly would
lay the foundation for ON affidavit OF this description,
and the issuing Of an ATTACHMENT. There Is no just
cause of complaint, therefore, against the attaching
creditor.
The question the Court was called on to decide was.
whesher, under all the evidence 1t appeared clearly
that fraud was perpetrated or intended; and that
Se tssrS Sn S
T. Harris, rs trustee for Mrs H. which could be the
subject matter Of sale or conveyance!
debtor In falling circumstances may make con-
veyance, the object OF which 10 payment Of an hon.
est debt; but In all sales made to intimate friends,
or to party Of ones own household, there 10 al
ways stronger tendency to scrutiny and suspicion
ns e
derstood by those who did business with defendant,
Including the agent the plaintiff that the capital
invested In his store belonged to his wife. It was
full consideration for all this indebtedness was ac-
counted least 80 expressly as 1t ought to be In
case Of this descri ption.
In addition to this proceeding, the purchaser had
been served r. with ~ arnishse process Co. thai, sup;
that there had been fraudulent disposition Of the
property, this assignment must, under the law 81
last winter, inure to tho equal benefit Of all
The Court was not Inclined, under the clrcum.
stances, to dismiss the attachment altogether the
circumstances were such as to Justify the plaintiff in
further proce to ascertain the validity OF tbs
dismissing the attachment 80 far a. the pr ,perty
was concerned and retaining as to the garnishee
who then could answer and If the plaintiff was moi
satisfied with the answer Of the garnishee he could
the validity of the assignment
Headngton and jackson for the motion to dis
miss; Ball and Ball on the other side.