New-York daily tribune., 1865-11-14
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
vmportsms Decision.
ruy ur,mvoRp GOLD CHEcKs-RIGBIs OF ATTACH
ING CREDITORS.

ING CREDITORS.
SUPREME COURT-rRiAL TKRx-Nov' Id-Before Judse
CLyRxE
Greepleaf agt. Mumford and others.
T Since the decision in Rinchey agt. Stryker go
How r. r. 1,, consider It no Longer an open question
nrocedne tbe plaintiff the action obtains sch lien on the
property attached a. will enable hi" to the Intervention ai
all fraudulent claim aud transfers. OF spy Other fraudulent 90
in the Of the realization oi me hcn IN e,se e
rious to that decision, a great diversity OF opinion
existed among the members OF the bench o. and & Tue
right existed until the pn,ih proceeded TO Judgment and
execution, and that eInsnsted hs COMMON 'w h se
su,t.inpg ibis latter view That was an action ayowedy
ur eaye to the specific remedies afforded by those pro-
visions for the reazon Of the properyo the defendant IN
the possession Of third parties or Tor the recovery oi
neps of those proyons and, II he had there Was
nothing in the case which authorized ,he i.'Poh me- 81 ,'
hibited fraud, colluson or combination opsrucna tue
H. TSs action then having been properly brought and
the Cour, having the right to shord the remedy prayed oi II
s ss c sns st9 91 sp mmo1d n and 1od and m
was the plaintiff obtained specific lien upon 20 tne
ford ard hi. other cedor And fret a. TO the transfer OF
the %a3 by MumoTd to Oakley think III. fraudulent IN
August 1865 he bought Of A. L. Legion Co.. Greenlea the
plaintiff in this sctisD and many Others various sums ol
American gold coiu in the whole amounting to about Fly
gave lis checks the several sellers the Mechanics bsnA
hsse che all di-honorTt IndouDfrdy
possible. by unexpected failure. or di-honesy on A. ,o IT,
part the persons with whom he dealt 90 that on the DAY ~
question may have been rendered Incapable oi nins
good his account on that day; and the single
be had fuDds In the bank at the time when e eee
we're presented no Of sefcoucnsiyc evidence 81 Isud
Therefore no cns prosecution could be MAINTAINED against
him founded this single circumstance lie nec",s
business require that the drawing Of CHECKS In cases OF 'h
nature, when there are no fund, In th- on IN 'ne rS, S
portion OF business hours should be tolerated "hee 'hs nh
!. the habit of certifying checks for the daw,' hu r. IN
the before eIplanaton. are given and no eteu'
appears why Mumford did not mlse bic s'conn NJ te p
rood On The contrary we nna INN Ssp s instead Of
depo,tns il in ,.e Msehspie Me b.ns placing fsnd ~,
defendant Oakley Taking all these ocunstsnco, togs ~
purchasing gold TO this large amount In currency Of r'
from various aearis swing hi. ch't' TO the s'se,s ~
which al dishonorc and then mAsing e.shl' m ~
slrrepiou, disposition Of large amoun, Of money ~ ri
Nely thercncr esn leave room for any DOUBT 'ha,
. liable 10 any attachments which his creditors msy hs'c
issued against IT. portion OF II ,nd hs " IN C'h.'
cases, the maxim ofthe law applies 'i2iHm,n' non a".a
nsnbai juaa subreaiHHr The laws a',.i those VINO arc
visilani those who sleep over their nhr M iof ~
ample the creditor who hrst lcye' m s'Aehmen % an e
cuon preference other creditors out % te prop
erty which a.. levy 10 made -, -,
manner the painta in the action before u' the
preference winch ,hc sw si'e' TO thr most vsas,, ~
IL oticed by the counsel iof me hn" thN no co.'
Of the Of attachment vi" sfN.t beca.' cory 81
the Judge. signature va. not 'ubs 90 70 ~ ls
Of the Judge who grants the rarsu no dono' iprhne
Il, validity. woui there would be a. s',r' ince 70 ihe
officer who executes that Is genuine Bot ,sn9o con
ceivc that the reason r1s' iot addins r 'san'' "
copy. II j. proper that the person VINO H ~ p's.Toh :"
OF the ds'rIdAn', of VINO - nHfNFn "
know III. eou.rts body Il warrant and that VS.
Issued IN ogder that he my he sbe 10 conform 10 What
a rcd Of nlm Tie fhcf reeds than this icr on see
Ing that the ynrnnt hs not me 'g4lt' ~ We ,uos ~
.rbed he wouii discover that hs bed no snthof
ty ereeule ii and be septed 10 do 80 he ~eud o.
The nes, obecon relative cr.eiga Of , warrant
ia that tho notce accompanying ii- wrrsn va dsecii'e
bis notice informs he pr'ou On whoin y ,'t'' u''
the property Of the dofendsnt IN n" a'ahmoni sd hs
ec,s hshts and shares s'ocs wh infcsi thereon ai
ther isom end s debt. ard cr.diu Of h" ,si f.
fendsni in pots,son of The aid pef.nn OF na' h'
control wil be liable 20 tie ti'tchcui sut nc ssd 'on
the sheriff w,hou, delay with ccfiAosle 'h.f.oi ss''
snned all the authorities referred 70 by h, d'.ndsus com
Ia Of'-r GIos'n.p "a ov Y H., 3!"l thsfe no
positive a:ei;,ss on , ;als. IS' .n..;s. g, tho ..sn
sen,ra notice that tho .hra s,',eh.. Al, III. prepsry ~
sufficient aachner, under the Code and they decide Tho
another point, In kaufman agt O'er IS pueF Ca
und Wilson agt Duncau ui, b. 81 the sop'for coar' an
doub,edy di decide that senersl notice was no .grn,
in other wold, that The Preeo Popr'yi ' naafs .nd
any decision upon Ills sabec, rendered oy his Court IN any
District Of tl,s State.
confess In the sbsene. Of 'nch d"con On not IN
cined follow those VA the Superior Coaft g. which hnve
above reiesed 10 requfe. 80 precise ,reh alton m all
cases would lie imPsctc.he, and "ould d"Ir'c HIuy
creditor Of the remedy which this process an0fds. Many
Of the property belonging to ther hands Of fd
parties although they hive abundli reason 20 believe
that there IL property In their hands ~ the time - is.g
ng and serving the attachment He NAY obtain the Informs
ton compel 10 the usnnei provided by section 20 bot
this h s,or the attachment has been i,.usd snd notice Of Il
served and IN o mranme TIE re'"nns IN the cA,e' y.
i.red 10 correct there h nothing to prevent The person on
property to tho defrnisii. or 10 rreven, .
debtor Of The defendant from r,yirg tm the deb, doe
the benefit Of this provisional remedy merely because they
Of the precise nature and amount Of iruodn
parties, within the Jurisdiction of III. Court No serious in
convenience by the sbscncs Of this sPcchcaon in
panes always datos the e1ac amount GAINED hh cAnnot
see therefore what embsa.snent the holder I'm, property
eau be 70 ty the generality Of the notice lie know.
what the property H. and is amount and by examining re
war,lt easily the amount Of the claim The
and nothing more OF Tho holder .ur,udcrs 'he whole
the henn and 1-eods the thf eiaip b. i
oner,ei nom all iurhe. liability tho property Ia IN The safe
Ia tie case before Us. N. S,",u Bank cond certainly
have suffered wrong nconsenencs from tho want Of
this specification The oceIs the baus the
deposited with them, and they tnew, equally well
man ag OTscI 10 winch nave been referred the Cop says
that the he required by section 2j1 10 make invent
able him 10 make inventory he hA, slcicnt 10 enable
him TO give notice specifying the property On the conary
Obliged make inventory forth Aer serving notice u
the attachment e csu require cefihcs,r from the iniisi1
fthcy cfusc iui.h IT, they be- rquircd do by
the Of the Judge and obedience 10 such order may BE-
not intend thai the .hera should msIe th. inventory On the
day, Immediately after Tie day upon which he serves u
hc,t information al the time Il the service 10 liable lin 10
give notice containing Pechcaonof of the property
for the that il provides method by which be could
procure h. information after tho attachment has been iIod
end notice Of 1t las been sSsn to the holder Of the defend
ants property
consider threiorr that the notice served in bi,
sufficient.
Ast the objection that the notice defective In being
served only tie Bunk before a.. execution aud de
livery Of the .inncnt. The law requires that the notice
shond be left with the debtor copprBti1n. ndtda hold
ing such property. In this the Nassau Bank held III.
property the of $4,000 actually depostod In II,
vaults at the time, and have shown that this money the
ssd time belonged the defendant Mumfoid the
transfer which 3. endeayorcd TO make o ii was fraudulent
| aud therefore void
Judgment, plaintiff in conformity with the prayer
the complaint.
The Hacltzrr Divorce Case.