The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-06-08
HE UR T s.
Unlawful Preferences In BsnHuptcy-Spec
Reeeivsrahips- Outrage at Sea-Broadway
Widening Illegal seizurs-Busi-
ness Of the General eesiona
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CeuaT.

Decisions In Bankruptcy-Unlawfal Prefer.
eaces.
Yesterday Judge Blatchford rendered his decision
In the case OF John sedgwick. assignee, vs.. James
Aillward. The decision is in the following Ian
guage:-
There can be no doubt that the defendant took,
BY his executions an unlawful preference. The
debtors were insolvcnt, and procured and suffered
intent to give preference to the defendant Is Q
creditor, and he had reasonable cause to believe
the vet Was intended. The assignee is entitled
to recover from the defendant the property
Or Or Its value. The property has been sold. Under
the spirit Of section TWENTY-FIVE OF the act regard
the sale OF the property IN New YORK BY the Sheriff
OF this court and the proceeds OF such sale IS tho
measure OF the value OF such property for the pur.
Is entitled to be allowed credit for the $So5 paid for
the expenses OF sale and Tor the II paid over to
sSe the MS fee. on sne
inc pan en' isao to its value less
not appear what such expenses were and how the
net proceeds 1888 81 were arrived at nor how
the estimate Of value put upon 1t In the evidence.
What brought at the sale may, the condition Of
the property at the time ana the circumstances OF
the sale be shown, be as good evidence OF value as
such estimate Is. There must be an accounting for
agree upon It. The defendant cannot be allowed
credit for the amount oil the fees OF the Sheriff OF
Kings county on Tie execution TO MIN. Inc paln-
TN IS entitled TO decree according to these views,
with costs
s. NJ North for the PLAINTIFF r. r. Coudert for the
defendant.
Special Recc!vershp- Voluntary Settlements.
In the case Of John SedgwSk, Special Receiver.
Vs. John O. Preble. ct a.. his Honor has also
dered the following decision:-
This suit is brought compel the application to
the payment OF the debt OF James D. Sparkman, q
bankrupt, OF the proceeds OF certain leasehod pro-
perry situated in FOrty-second street, New York.
The property was settled by Sparkman upon his
wife by voluntary settlement made solely Ia con-
sheraton OF the marriage relation. The premises
were leased to Sparkman IN March, 1863. BY an as
December g.. 1896, Sparkman assigned the lease
December l, 1858, acknowledged December s. 1885,
and recorded December 0, 1885, Place assigned the
lease to Mrs. Sparkman. These assignments and
the settlement hereby made are subject TO pe i'm
were made with intent to hinder delay and defraud
the creditors OF Sparkman. In the case OF Sedg-
wick vs.. Place have fully considered the legal
principles which must govern the decision IN this
case. On the facts, without gong into a detailed
discussion OF Them II shown by the evidence that
Sparkman was amply solvent when he made the
settlement; that he was LETT after he had made
IL with abundant means to pay all his debts then
Sting that II was reasonable In amount, and that
he had no intent or purpose OF embarktng In any
hazardous business, or numbering delaying or de-
fraudng any existing or future creditors. This ls
true even though the settlement be regarded as
having Included in contemplation the $40. 600 of
United states securities, as well Us the leaseh0d
property and the furniture In the houses the pre-
misses ana the horses and carriages in the stables.
The Dill must be dismissed, with costs.
+. A. Bangs for plantln; Mr. Buckley for defcn.
dant,