The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-07-31
NEW YORK CITY.
TIE COURTS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou,1-M B,,hxsup1cy
Decisions,

Decisions
Before Judge Blatehford.
In the matter Of Marshal H. Durham and Joseph
Orr, composing the firm ~ NJ l.. Durham & Co.,
Judge Blatchford yesterday rendered the following
decsion-A petition for adjudication OF bankruptcy
was filed by E. V. Hatch h Co. against Durham &
Orr. Two acts Of bankruptcy are aleged-First that
the debtors in November, 1867 being possessed Of
stock Of millinery goods, with the lease fixtures and
furniture Of the premises 1874 Canal street. made q
sale or transfer OF the to one Robert Orr with
intent to defraud the creditors OF the said debtors
and, sec0nu that the debtors In January, 1858,
being bankrupt or insovent, made to said
Robert Orr an assignment or conveyance OF the
book accounts and debts due or to become due
to the debtors, with intent, to give preference to
said Orr. The debtors have denied the acts OF
bankruptcy set forth in the petition. The testimony
shows that the debtors did deliver chattel mort
gage on a portion of the millinery goods, flowers,
demand with interest thereon from the date of the
mortgage to the time OF payment, which mortgage
was lodged in the proper office to make 1t valid
instrument. The debtors commenced business In
December 1867 and failed the last day Of December,
1867; but the value Of the property mortgaged was
between $4,000 and 49, 900, covering all the property
of the debtors except their book accounts and that
the debtors continued business and remained IN
possession OF the mortgaged property after the mort
gage was given until the I'd OF January 1868, when Orr
1oreclOsed the mortgage and had sale OF the same
Under these circumstances, although the mortgage
the provisions of section Of the act, still it was
mortgage on personal property Of the debtors,
held by the creditor, Robert Orr, securing the pay
ment Of a debt owing to him by the bankrupt, and
thus within the saving clause Of section twenty OF
the act; and 1t not being alleged that the mortgage
was given when the debtors were bankrupt nso
vent, or contemplated bankruptcy, it cannot al
though It was made with the intent to give prefer
ence to Orr as creditor, be held to be within any Of
the nhibitures OF the thrtynnth section of the act
or made with intent to defraud the creditors, within
the meaning OF those terms used in that section
The first act Of bankruptcy alleged is therefore not
sustained The second act OF bankruptcy is to the
instrument In writing purporting to transfer sundry
accounts against persons named therein. This In
strument having no Internal revenue stamp upon it
Is declared null and void. The proceedings are there
fore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Refusal Of an Order to Show Cause.
In the Matter or Wright, Glies and James W. Gil
lies Us. William S. Cone and WiUianl NJ Morgd1-
was an application by the two first named parties,
who creditors of the two last named for order
for the latter to show why they should not be
declared bankrups on the alleged ground that they
had fraudulently stopped payment. The Court, after
due examination rules that the order to show cause
is refused,