Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-01-29
THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT OF THE DISTRICT IN GEN.
ERAL TERM, Chief Justice Carter presiding; As
socidte justices Ohm, Wylie and Fisher-In the
case Of Purcell VS.. Miner, which was on trial
yesterday when cur report closed, the Court re-
served its decision.
In re, Geo. l.. Sherwood.-It was to-day or
dered that the rule to show cause in the petition
OF hdJeds corpus liz this case be discharged, and
that the proceedings be heard and considered
an appeal by the Court in General Term at its
present terra.
THE MOCK LOCK CASE.
This morning the case of VIM. Gunton ct al
VS.. Joseph Mock, Swami for appellant, Henkle
for appellee, was before the court. This is a
bill for specific hSn upon Judgment recov-
cred by the defendant in the Court of Claims
and an Injunction restraining him from collect
ing the amount of the claim; the complalnants
claim a lien by virtue OF certain drafts given
by the defendant upon the Postmaster General
In January, February and March, $780, for the
purpose OF raising money to carry on contract
Tor the manufacture OF locks and keys for the
mail service Of the United States Defendant Is
not alleged to be insovent. The answer and
amended answer set up divers matters, aud
that, after this indebtedness accrued, the COM
plainants took from defendant an assignment
of certain patent, W ich was sufficient TO have
satisfied the debt, but that the same was held
until ii expired, for a period of over fourteen
years, without any attempt TO sell. and
without any benefit TO defendant: and that
the drafts so given were to be paid out of the
proceeds Of any locks and keys that he might
deliver to the epar tment. On this, after proofs
decree was rendered for complainants for
SS,7OOI33, and the injunction sustained De-
PENDANTS appealed to the Court in general term
and 1t now comes up for trial, and defendants
claim that the advances upon said drafts con-
stitute no lien on the Judgment. ID That these
drafts remaining unpaid June 9th, $40. COM
plainants received from the defendants as Sc
curity an assignment of a patent for the d bit.
and that this was a waver of any lien and that
the Court of Claims have complete jurisdiction
over the subject matter, and over all parties in
interest, and this court cannot interfere in any
Judgment rendered BY il.
The complainants on the other hand. claim
that this was specific lien, not only on the
patent, but on the proceeds and profits thereof
and was given with the intention of securing
the reimbursement of the money advanced TO
him, and when the deed was me- de, the ri ght and
title to the patent and proceeds passed to VIM
Gimpton as Trustee, for the benefit of the COM
plainants. tits a direct charge in rem, and a
court of chancery will enforce il and subject
the proceeds TO the payment of the same. Also
claims another agreement of defendant I'd DE.
cember, ls52, comforting further right and lien,
and on 9Th of June, 1865, another agreement
thus creating triple lien, and they ask for a
specific performance of the contract
BANKRUPTCY Court, j. Sayles Brown, Reqis-
ter.-Docket case No. II. Testimony taken
under moton. and notice 10 assignees to show
cause why they should not be removed. Notice
to assignees to give bond.