The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-02-03
BOND VS.. aRUTHERGLEN,
JUDGE UNDERWOOD URGES PEACE.
IsvEsT111aATIlos PosTpoaED..


Hiram G. Bond against Andrew Ruther-
glen, assignee, Mr.. Bond was represented
BY General r.. II. Wells, and Mr.. Ruther-
glen by Judge W., N. Crump and Colonel
John 81. Guy.
Colonel Guy, on behalf of the defendant,
submitted to the court the following de-
tailed reply to the charges of the register;
In the District Court of the United States
for the District of Virginia, in the matter
of Hiram g. Bond against Andrew Ru-
therglen:,
To the Hon. John G. Underwood,
Judge of said District Court:
Answer of Andrew Rntherglen to the Spe-
cifcations of Hiram G. Bond, Register
in Bankruptcy.
FIRST charge: That Mr.. Rutherglen has
not furnished bonds as assignee, as required
by law.
Aps,rer: Respondent has fled bond as
security, satisfactory to his Honor Judge
Underwood, who, under section 13 of the
Bankrupt Act, is alone authorized to require
a. bond as security from an assignee. In
re Dean, B. r. 26.)
Second charge: That he had not made
reports as assignee, according to law.9
dRslrer: The Register in Bankruptcy is
ordered by section II, "That so soon as
said assigneeis is appointed and qualified"
that he shall, "by on instrument under his
hand, assign and convey to the assignee all
the estate, real and personal, of the bank
rupt, &c.; that in 30 far as respondent is
concerned he has only received from Regis
ter Bond eightyJfve assignments in respect
of upwards of five hundred bankruptcies in
which he has been appointed assignee by
this Court; that the Register is further re-
quired by section of the act "to furnish
the assignee with certified copy of such
orders, and of the schedules of creditors,
and assets, filed in each case"; that the
said Register has not so furnished respon-
dent with such copies, although reference
to his docket will show that he has never in
any case failed to charge for them, as if
they. had been furnished, and hence re-
spondent has been unable to discharge his
duties in terms of law.
Third charge: That he had not deposited
the money received as assignee in the First
National Bauk, as required by the rules Of
of the Court.
AnS1oer Denied but explained that re-
spondent has sold under the orders Of the
Judge of this Court of dates 18th and 3lst
August, 1869, various of the properties
therein Acknowledgements of the sale OF
oil which will be presented, along with evi-
dence of the disposal of the proceeds of the
sales to your Honor on Saturday, the 9Th
day of February current.
Fourth charge: That he had paid away
IL 4ha 10 of
bered estates without making report to
the Court or Register.
AnS,cer: Denied.
Fifth charge: That he had not complied
with the 2Sth rule of the Court, requiring
assignees to transmit to the Clerk of the
Court q memorandum showing the names
of the creditors, their places of residence,
etc.
.Ansuer: Denied: but explained that in
respect of the Registers dcrelction Of duty
in not transmitting the respondent the
proofs Of debt filed in his office in terms
Of section ~, it was impossible for respon'
dent to make returns to the Clerk of Court
which said rule requires to be done in " al
cases in which proofs of debt have been
previously furnished the assignee"
After the reading of this document, Judge
Underwood said he had not time at present
to investigate these charges. He thought
the assignee had misapprehended his duty
to the creditors. He should make his re-
turns to the Register. The court thought
too, that Mr.. Rutherglen had assumed
power not belonging to him in settling him.
self the priority Of Claims. This was not
his province, although he doubtless thought
this was the proper construction of law
The Register should decide such matters
and if there was dissatisfaction with hit
decision, the creditors might appeal to ths
Court.
r Judge Crump Cnterrupting) said Mr.
Rutherglen had not undertaken to settle
any legal questions.
The Court: He has made payments, and
hereafter these irregularities must be cor
| rected, and the forms of low strictly COM
piled with. AS to the bond Of the assignee
| he has filed d good one with ample security
for $4,000, but MIR. Rutherglen is mis-
taken in saying that the court pro.
nounced it sufficient. We said it was gooo
bond. Hereafter let it be understood tina
| if the assignee pays out money, it must bt
under the direction of the Register or th'
Court. Not having time to 60 into the case
now, shall not proceed with it until MY
return, three weeks hence; by which tim'
I shall expect from the assignee full re
port .oe his transactions; and that every
thing will be Strengthened, / have no doubt
In conclusion, Judge Underwood sol:
there must not exist such deplorable stat
of feeling between the officers of the eoul
as that they cannot report to each other
sThey should let "by-gones be by-gones.
Mr.. Bond here said that if Mr.. Ruther
| glen was willing to report to him as re
! CURED by law, he was perfectly willing
withdraw the charges and allow him to &C
as assignee. 1s4E.
Mr. Rutherglen was about to explai
what moneys he had paid ont, when Judg
Underwood interrupted him, saying
"Well, I think we understand each othe
now. You have as general thing don
right"
Judge Crump said his Honor did no
seem to be informed of the facts in the case
The Register has certainly often failed {
discharge his duties.
Judge Underwood: Perhaps not, in com
instances.
Judge Crump,: In many instances il
hundreds of cases.
alr. Wells rejoined that he thought tn
Register had discharged his duty faith
fully, and had shown praiseworthy forbear
ance in regard to the assignees.
Judge Underwood said that several as
signees had been delinquent, and seeme'
very ignorant Of their duties, but he di'
not think there had been any loss there
from.
Mr.. Bond said there was not single in
stance in which the assignments have no
been made out end delivered to the az
signee. He may, however, have mislai
them.