, 1864-04-07
LIMITED STATES CQURE.
IT.. rr.nt nro,s C1,sueery snit---TefusE, 0!
1udge Drummend t. appoint -
ReteiTtrs

r, ,h~ r1nfted statcs Circuit Court yesterday,
,.sss n,,,mmond esre his decision on The motion
or r. fuuplaluants to bill In Chancery for the
e.,,o,nt1ucnt Of Receiver Of the proceeds Of the
~, n Mcssrr. Ftank T. Son, Clothfers, No. u
1ote etrect- The motion was made upon bill
which ia pending in chnncer5, wherein Reuben Il.
Frank and Julius Frank, who are the complain
ants, aese that In 1856 they entered into copazt-
nerrhlp with the defepdante for the purpose OF
carrying the business OF ealesmen and roanutae-,
tusets Of ready made clothing under the 6r1n title Of
Frank Brothers Co. They established thets
principal place of bneiness at Cincinnati, Ohio,
with Mnnch stores at 1osnnsport and Lafayette,
Lyons, lows. They oontinuea In Susineas aN un,iI ii
the fall oflt57, Ehen the arm nsdc mn assignment
ofits effects. The stores ct ottawa and saltoa
creditors Of lie rm, to satisfy tSeir claims. the
balance to be returned to Frank Brothera / Co,
The possession Of the store at Lyons was given up
terms. % Aiier the hrms of asct Bfos., and md Bonn
& Mack had eatsfed their claimt, the bill alleges
that ccrtain goods, to the Ealns Of $1,000
qapk aeed aed Zee & Frank two o t5e
defendants md placed in the store of the firm At
Fnl.on, Isaac II. Frank assuming the ownership.
It ls ulso alleged in the bill that other psopartea
ana eash belonging to The fTm, amounting Is vaiae
to s2o0M was secretly appropriated By t6e defend
ants. The complainants further allege that after
al he seg n,ads r. q ht h
alm. there rcnaincd further indebtedness Of
&19.16s.41, which was paid to the complainauts,
ths defendants Jacob H and I'd assse FFank. eoa:
5seo6 ae oH i: I'D 1ssaa H. hspE dssa tsa o. I'D ID
oa sh 5 I'll IL 1hns' FIJI foen9ss oi 49, II o so'ass; s
sas tbet to s csiesse s
1ss ~. r. a sGn
| tur to the old partnership. The motion OF the
complainant for the appointment Of receiver WAS
Ie5tsea upon the ground As proved BY tae mass Of
j. That there WIS not preponacrsnoe Of eyl-
dcncc to show a secretion Of property. that the
the assignment was Inconsistent with tho hyposbe-
ols m Vic 1ho wonld ha7s been most likely 70 Sa7e
| ench tact. and without imagining a great
and Improbable scheme on the paFt Ct
rp 10 the time Of the failure Of the business the
greatest cnrdIalIty excited. there could be no
ground upon which TO hang such srpposition. 4
but sntural that t would be ffoIn their pressing
CREDITORS and the position Of matters 1t the tIaa
IVES utterly inconsistent With the theory th.t the
ras1Lers could tty to Gefraud each Other. Besides
The tsuor Of the letters Of the brothers to each 9th
er on tie oceaeion Of the insolvency was entire.y
9oaa e
been praatccd towards tho outside Torfd. the Gen
| tics, nd not between brethren who were JeWs-
The weight OF the evidence went to show that
there were NJ goods transferred to 1saac II. Frnnk
and IS to the possession by him OF tho moneys o!
the firm, With their pressing necessities. un}eas
motives couid be ehoxn which were other than
natural It wonld rot be likely that he would be
the holder Of any cash. Besidee the production 0l
! the books OF Frank, Brothers & Company, would
not Justify the presumption Of fraud unless 1t
carried on fur series of yesrs, which was highly
improbable
II does rot appear ttiat Frank i Sons are abou
to depose Of their property. the facts as alese
in The bill ere true, they canuot escape the respon
hibilHJ which 1t must entail and IT. would theEt
: Eare BE- far better that they should be allowed t
Eoet sath their 1ussness, which anpcArs to be
Moel pIuhh.aess ~ - Incentive ore In order tbs
they may be prepared 1nect the demands urge
larcc amount OF property on hand wticS 1nev =,
, | dieposlng Of IN The ordinary waI II busincss
> and therefore undcs the cafcua1stas.a7
appoint receiver would not be
accordance with the ordinary principles Of instct
| II the cnse goes On decree will be rendered aa
: The detcudants must respond The money part
the allegation in the bill docs not constitute
!, claim fof the appointment Of a receiver and mu
eimply be treated ~ a CASH demand upon the dru
In concluding his remarks denying the motto
:. ! judge Drummond expressed himself as regfett1k
D ibat IN action parta11ng 60 much OF the chRract
and details Of family quarrel and scandel shoa
0 he brought into court Of Inv.