The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-08-26
UNITED STATES COURT.
Proceedings OF tho United States District
Court for tho Western District OF South
Caroiinn-august Term, 1869.
lFRoM OUR OWN ooRRE-posDENr.l
TWELFTH DAYS PROCEEDINGS.

r,
! ct al, vs. Newton Sims, = citizen Of South Car
olna. Bill for injunction pnd relief Mem
minger, Jervey & Pnckuey complainant's 30
hctorb. -t-
Hen1y B. Goodyear, :. citizen os tho State of
Conn ecticut, administrator OF Nelson Good
year. ct al v5. Jamos W. .Gurley, q citizen OF
the State Of South Carolina. Bill for iniunc-
ney comrlainants solcitas.
Henry L. Goodyear, o citizen Of the Slate of
Connecticut, administrator or Nelson Good
Of the State Of South Carolina. Bill for in-
junction ana relief. Memminger, Jervey &
Pinckney complainant's solicitors.
Tho following order was granted in the
| above three cases: This case came on to bo
heard on motion Of corer,ailaut for prelimI-
nary injunction, and, therefore. 1t ie ordered,
that an injunction, as prayed for in the COM
pla,nans S be granted enjoning and re-
| tornoys, agents, servants and workmeu, from
making any hard rubber for dental purposes,
or in dentistry, OF from using any hard rubber,
such as is described In said roisshed letters
patent rooted 'in said complalnant's bill in
dontistry, or for dontal purposes. or in tho
manufacture OF plates for artificial teeth, or
from selling any artificial teeth or plates for
setting. tceth in which hard rubber is used.
Said injunction to continuStlntil tho final hear
ing OF this case, or the further order Of The
| court.
In re. W. T. 'shumato and A. Blythe. as
signees of J. W. Grady. vs. D. o. Hawthorn, OF
the hrm OF Grady & Hawthorn. Petition for
| involuntary bankruptcy. w: E. Earlo, pro pet.
Hon. b. L. Porry for respondents. rftIi.s -Ii T.
Upon demand in writing filed by the respou-
pondents to said petition, thnt tho fact OF lhe
commission Of an act Of bankl uptcy may be In
qnired OF by a jury. it is ordered. that the
vency OF the firm at this presopt term of court,
sitting at Greenville, in the County OF Green
vile, South Caroina.- |.
signees, vs. D. O., Hawthorn. Sidney b. Tur-
byfill, Ut the firm OF Grady, Hawthorn Tur.
6sfill. Petition for fnal discharge. ". Z.
Earle, pro pet. Hon. q. T. Perry for respon-
dents. Same ordor as in preceding case.
Criminal DocEei.-United States ve. Benia-
min Moon. Violation OF internal revenue
laws. Defendant pleads guilty, aud was san
sna I'd o pas as a nSnssd oss dollars
The grand jury returned into o,urt with the
following bills and findings, as follows. True
bills: ,.. .. ,,,...,'t aTi III!
United States vs. Ohiesenberg MoAbee. Dis.
tlation without paying special tax, sections
5, 6. and A, July 20, 1868. t'' 49,
United stales vs.. William Long. .Idom,
"No bill" in the following ossR: United
State va. John Long.
Of R nGypt'yE1 BstaIp paTts Joseph DSshstt
Darlington Suber,. pro pet.
The Registrar. q. g. Jaeger, having reported
| favorably, on motion, the. Judge signed, under
seal. the order and certificate OF discharge.
Ex parte 3. 81. Wardlaw, assignee, In re.
lion creditors and order thereon. Clawson &
Thomson, pio pet. NJ
Order Of reference to ". J.. Clawson, Regis
trar, to report after notice to lien creditors,
sa,s9 as9 for report as TO lien creditors after notice.
Ex parte R. Il. wardlaw. assignee, in re. ].
William Power. 1dem, idem. Same order as
E1 parte r.: HTardlaw, assignee, in re. John
G. Boozer. Idem. Slem. ri ~ f97f-l' N :
EH parte r. b. Wardlaw, assignee, in re-.
Thomas j. McCraoken. Same order as the one
preceding. '..,''-f Il,
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
In re. John w. Grady, Bankrupt, William T..
shumate and Absalon Blythe, Assignees, vs.
David 0. HawthoIn-Same vs. David O.
Hawthorn and Sidney 81. Turbyall. +
These cases involve the same principle and
presented the same state Of facts, and were ar
gued together. y4...o ~ s-sG 4
John W. Grady being member Of the frm
of Grady & Hawthorn, and OF Grady, Haw-
thorn Turbyfll, by his attorney, Governor
Perry, fled his petition for voluntary bank
ruptcy in December last, and in his schedules
showed assets and liabilities In behalf OF each
OF these firms as well as for himself individu-
ally. His oopartners wore not served with q
copy Of the petition, or In any wise made par
ties to the proceedings. The petitioners in
the present cases we're appointed his assig-
nees. and filed their petition by William e.
Earle, Esq, their solicitor, alleging the bank
ruptcy OF Grady, the copartnerships and tho
insolvency Of ths copartnerships respectively,
| and prayed that the firms might be respective
ly adjudicated bankrupt, and the ass cts be ad-
ministered in the bankruptcy court. Governor
Perry also answered these petitions. and de-
nyng that the parties had committed any act
| Of bankruptcy, and moved that the rule to
| show cause should be dismissed on t he ground
that the firms could not be forced into bank
ruptcY unless they had done something which
the act declared to be an act Of bankruptcy;
that the assignees Of Grady conld not maintain
these proceedings against his late copartneIs.
and that they were unnecessary for the adpin!
istration OF the bankrupt's estate, and that the
bankrupt could be. diacharged from his indivi!
dual debts without She firms going into bank.
ruptoy. sn' n ~ .sfI ~, !. !
Captain Earle, for the asaignees. replied al
considerable length, adduoing great uupnbeg
OF authorities tom the reports and the bank!
rupt authors to sustain the position that Grady
could not be discharged from any Of his debtd
until the copartnership debts were paid, or the
copartnership assets were administered in
bankruptcy; that copy Of Grady's petition
should have been served 40 tnuio on his co-
| partners, as these we're copartnership assets.
That this not having been done according to
the prescribed practice, the sssiRnees had be-
come the only parties who could proceed 10
heal the omission. and that, as the agents OF
the creditors generally. It was their duty to IN.
stitute these proceedings, in order that: the
| estate might te administered according to the
Bankrupt Act, and the individual assets be ap-
pliod to individual debIs, and the copartnership
assets 10 the copartnership deb.s; and that It
was unnecessary to allege or prove that the
respondents had committed any act Of bank
ruptcy; but that their copartner, Grady, having
asked for the benefit Of the act, It became neces-
sary, II the firms were insolveng that The Is-
sc,s OF the firms should be administered In the