New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-12-22
SUPREME CoURT-CmAxBERs

Before Mr.. Justice Barnard. The Cold In.
functions GesDie Ggt Nelson, Preii, de-Ihis was
motion 70 dissolve OF the iuIunctons granted nme
diatey after the great gold panic and the failure OIL t
Gold Exchange Bank restraining the stock ana G9 90
Exchanges from enforcing the expulsion OF members iot
falling complete their contracts IN gold on that day
under their rules
continuing this suit by the defendant 10 obtain cos
the bond That the suit hadFeen discontinued as 10
the Gold Exchange without costs aud that they we're
willing have the similarly discontinued as against
the stock Exchange. ,,, a.,
solved, and ordered. Mi Marbury Tor mot!On' eA-
Judge Barrett opposed. &C..
HcfOre ST. Justice Bdruari.-COuGid Of authority be-
freeu United Staies and State COtU-i re- Tie bdshg-
ton Insurance Conpnly-Thc Washington Insurance.
Company having become insolvent proceedings were
taken I'm the State Courts under the state Law 10 dissolve
the Company and carried Tar that dissolution
was decreed, and Receiver appointed 10 wind up the
affairs OF the Company. some Ihohhs aIteT tue Oeeah
Insurance Company, as creditor, commenced proceed
ings IN the Bankrupt Court and assgnees IN bankruptcy
were appointed hessrs. Anthony ana che", uio as
TO get the assets OF the lusUNent
,neDeed snit in the United States Court compel
Messrs GanesOu and Haskns the Receivers IN the state
Court proceedlngs to pay over w. nth 'o rus "a w ~,
insOlyent corporation. The Receiver now moves 10
punish the asslgnees for contempt IN interfering
with the property rightly belonging 10 ID, oiccf OF th
Court and Tor bringing SUIT against le o'tts Nou
leave OF the Court and also FOR an Injunction restraining
the assignees from prosecuting any SUIT against the Re
ceiver, interfering with the properly fOI the mO,n5
10 argued that, the corporation hR dissolved nc
Bankruptcy Court never acquired any jurisdiction rs us
must be IN relation 10 some eAstlns bankrupt I
even n 10 acquired any jurisdiction, bJ the Ncleslb
sed comfy Of courts the state Court having ust Cd
talued jurisdiction was thteu 10 Iethh ~ anu il AZ
any rae the a5sguees knowing OF the existence Oi if
ceyer were bound rst % apply % the court appointing
the Receiver for leave 10 attack him.
on the other hand II was argued that the assignes
like the Receiver the mere officers OF the Court
bound To obey the orders OF the Court and that IN col
ectug some money aud endeayOring collect the rect
they but carrying out the directions OF the Court
appointing Them and that there being cOntemptuo
intent they could not be punished contempt dong
what they obliged 10 do But was further argued
that the dissolution OF the corporation left alive for t1e
nurpose of closing up It's business that the appointment
Of IA Receiver merely an lnsolyent proceeding ald
such an nsOlvent proceeding like all Others super
seeded by the bankrupt The Court granted both no.
tons Nh. {. A. seward and Mr. Meade for notion NJ
Eye and Mr.. j. Il. Williams opposed.
BEFORE Mr. Hsiice Boruard-Thc Gle,hdn Hotel suit
In the suit TO wind up the affairs OF the Genham Hotel
Mr. Peters one of the parties TO the suit was appointed
application by other side, order was granted re-
moving SIR Peters and appointing d. r. Ingraham, Jh'
Receiver in his place directing hun To advertise the hO
and fixtures preparatory 10 sale under the direction u
the Court Nelson Smith for planti Ira Smaller for De
Before mr. Justice Northumberland for Cots
~ 1dranee.-Th0mas Ca'ry agt Xapier GndnL-Tlis
plaintiffs favor. The defendant had claim 10 breN-
cry Westchester County. MI Carey, who previously
erty agreed with defendant 10 take up his cause Or
$4,000 be paid when the suit should succeed To -
later day the defendant settled his suit, but the judg
ment being lien on his interest IN his opponents prop
morton 70 set aside the Judgment the motion there
were afidavts each side attacking the other.
Judge ngraham has decided the matter aside fromthe
personal sguables He holds that the agreement TO pay
OOO the Of the suit did not prohibit the
client settling the suit and ard not ene the la~y or
to his whole fee If the suit settled He only IN
the positOn OF who had imade an cXecutOry On-
tract and the other party had failed 10 fulfill lie vas
ened To damages the failure Of the other party to
perform ami these damages might be estimated acC0d-
ing TO the OF the compensation promised and e
performed lie held however that the judgment
though invalid as It's amount should stand security
and am orders accordingy Mr. Marsh and Mr. Carey flr
plaintiff; Mr.. James N. Smith for defendants