The New York herald., 1871-12-29
THE RT s.
Important Question in Bankruptcy esrviee
fsubpcnas-Al Alleged Violation Of tho Postal
Law-Ths Ludlow Street Pr,sonsrs-
Business in the Court Of o,er
and Terminer-Docisfoua
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN BANKRUPTCY -souTy
SlnE

Question as to tho Service or 6ubpmuas.
Yesterday In the case Of william r. Jobbins -
sgnee In bankruptcy OF Joseph p. Browner anl
Townsend Jackson and e. Montague ana 0therR
Judge Blatchford rendered his decision. on the 22d
of January, 1870 Jackson and ms copartner Brown
er. were adjudicated bsnkrupts on the petition ee
their creditors, and the paintn was appointed neir
assignee on February lS 1870 He received tne
usual assignment under which his title related back
r s aae q was ns nS cue nd o
OF the Clerk Of Hudson county n. j. ON she 2lth &
June, 1870 In June. 1892 Jackson was = saca !s Iof
Montague q TINS real estate % secure sne psymens
the DOnd was given with the knowledge OF the
MortRagers to protect the property from the tuse
upon issued to the Snerin OF Hudson c0unsy requtr
Ing him to sell this real estate. The property was
advertised tor sale The 4th OF May. but the sal0
was adjourned till september, 1871. Inc bill 10 TINS
SUIT was nled September 49, 1871; aud IT ayers thas
the pIaiutin was not made party to the proceed
lnys for iorcclosure that he had notice OF shen
ana that ne lid not know ol them until che dnAl
decree for foreclosure had been made.
this case on the defendant Montague wnen ho wa
resident IN New Jersey, was Irregular, and thae 20
cannot therefore. be compelled BY IL to appear In
this suit on pain OF having the bill taken es con-
Iesscd against him, on the ground that thls service
Old not avail under the tenth section OF the acs q
September "A, 1850. It is claimed by the plainti0
tnat the Court has power under the provisions g
the bankruptcy act to Dring the dcfendants mort.
gaKee into Court ny process served on nlm IN New
Jersey.
The Judge holds that the service OF the subpoena
IN this case must be set aside and also the servi0o
OF the Injunction on the ground that the $4,000
was never due on the bond. On the 24th of Novena-
ber 1862 they conveyed shls real estate their prop
erty Ivy Decd TO Albertson in fee simple, prOessedy
IN consideration Of $l5oco This deed was recorded
in Hudson county, N. j., on the 4th OF December.
1862 1t Is alleged in the bill that the deed was
made In contemplation OF bankruptcy, for the pur.
pose OF delaying the creditors OF Jackson, with the
knowledge or AbertsOn. On or about the 2Gth OF
February, 1870, planttT filed bill In equity asking
that the deed Abertson be set aside and to have
a receiver appointed for the property. An injunc.
tlon was asked by this bill, and granted on 2Sth Of
February, 1870 and on the 23d September 1870, ana
the plaintiI was appointed receiver In that case o.
this real estate IN Hudson county.
The grounds OF the opposition to the m m0Ct0n f0r
the appointment Or receiver are stated In the am
davit OF Montague OF the ith Of October, 1870. On
the 17tn OF October, 1870. Montague filed his bill OF
complaint in the Court OF Chancery, New Jersey,
against JACKSON and his wife and Abertson for tne
foreclosure OF tnls mortgage. On this bill decree
taken by default for $40, 795 70, principal and m
terest, said mortgage OF January Is. 1871. An OK
tecutiOn and PROVISIONS or the Barkrupct5 acr Sec
ion II OF the act OF 1885, and the third article or the
constitution, should be all construed and taken
together, as showing that process issued from tho
Court III New YORK ana served ON the defendant IN
New Jersey must be set aside for irreyuiarity-