The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-06-27
Important and Interesting Case DC.
cfdetS.


the cases of Peters, Williams & Co. vs.. Jos.
II. Shu,z, and of Joseph II. Shultz svs.
Peters, Williams & Co. This trial involved
the sum of some ten or twelve thousand
dollars, and presented very nice and
interesting questions of law for decision.
Tho transaction out of which these cases
arose was briefly this:
In July, 1860, Jos. Fl. Shultz, of Botc-
tourt, who was n contractor on the North
river canal, in Rockbridoe, and who had
received for his work $40, 300 in Virginia
registered bonds. deposited the same with
Peters, Williams 4 Co., bankers in Rich
mond and Lynchburg, with the under
standing that he should have the right to
call for said bonds again at any time, In
whole or in part, by giving ten days no.
tice. Accompanying this agreement was a
power of attorney from Shultz to d. II.
Williams, Of Richmond, authorizing him to
transfer said bonds to Peters, Williams &
Co.
Immediately after this agreement, and
connected with it, another was made be-
tween the same parties, by which Shultz
was authorized to draw on Peters, Will
liams & Co., upon the faith of said bonds,
for an amount Of money not to exceed their
value; 1t being part of said last-mcntion-
cd agreement, as stated by Shultz and de-
MED by Peters, that Peters, Williams &
Co. should sell the bonds to meet Shultzs
drafts rs they might be drawn.
Peters, Williams g. Co. had the bonds
transferred to them, and Immediately n.y.
pothecatcd them with the Continental
Bank OF New York for larger loan, upon
which they operated for several months.
Afterwards, but during the fall and winter
Of 1860, they disposed of all the bonds at a
price ranging from So to IS, realizing from
them the total sum OF over $1,000
In the meanwhile Shullz drew his drafts
| on them from time to time, and they were
paid to IN amount slightly exceeding
! S1l 900.
About the Goth of April, 1861, under the
panic produced by the secession of the
State, Virginia bonds fell in New York to
| forty or under.
Shultz having ut this time drawn on
Peters, Williams d Go. for a further sum,
| his draft was protested, and he was informed
| that ut the price of stock then prevailing he
had overdrawn, and was indebted to them.
| The matter remained unadjusted till 1868,
when Peters, Williams IL Co., instituted
| their suit against Shulz in the Circuit
Court OF Lynchhurg, claiming that he
| should pay them the difference between the
value OF his bonds, settled at ID, (the price
in April, 1861 and the amount OF his
| drafts, which had been paid as before stated.
The amount of their demand was about
$4,000. Shultz Immediately replied by 4
counter suit. claiming of Peters, Williams
| ~ Co. the difference between the price they
had received for his bonds, after deducting
their proper charges, and crcditing the
balance by the amount Of their payments
| on his drafts.
His demand on them was for something
near 5000. The theory of Peters, vii
liams " co. was that the transaction with
SliultZ was mere loan of bonds hy him,
to be paid for by them in kind that when
he drew i'll April, 1851, at the prices then
prevailing, it was an over draft, and they
had Il right to close the matter and appro-
pirate his bonds to the payment of their
advances pro tdnt0, and to make him pay
them whatever might rcmain on their ac-
count for said advances.
Shultz, on the contrary, claimed that the
transaction was deposit Of bonds by him
with them rs 4 fund to draw upon-they
having the right and the corresponding OBJ
ligallon to sell 10 meet his drafts as drawn
The case came up for trial before Judge
Marshall left the bench, and there was q
hung jury. After Il full hearing ut this
term, Il select jury brought in verdict
against Peters, Williams e Co. in their
suit, and for Shultz in his, though not to
the full amount claimed. Peters, Will
liams d Co. moved for new trial, but
Judge Wingfield oycrruled it on the
ground that the testimony was conflicting,
and so presented case peculiarly for jury
deci$ion.-Lynchburg Republican,.
CONFLICT BETWEEN A FEDERAL Court AND
| STATE CoURT-Anothcr Habcas COrpus.-
We learn that Deputy United States Mar
shall }. =. 1catman on Saturday received n
writ Of hdbcQs corpus, issued by Under
wood, directing him to bring before him
iUndcrwood), in alexandria,, on Tuesday,
the body Of Thorpe II. Nance, now con-
fined in the Jail of Bedford county for con-
tempt Of Judge Win fields court. We are
not familiar with the merits of this case,
which has already created considerable in
tcrcSt and excitement in this section, and
do not undertake to say whether Nance
has been harshly treated or not but
this much we do know-that Judge Wing
field is Il man of nerve, and is not apt TO
shrink from any position he has assumed at
the bidding of Judge Underwood though
he be backed by the whole United States
army. We question very much, in fact,
whether Judge Wingtield will allow the
writ to he executed; upon the ground that
Underwood, being Il Federal Judge, has no
right to interfere in matters which clearly
belong exclusively to the State courts. In
this event, it remains to be seen whether
Underwood will back up his writ with the
power of the Federal Government and exc
cute it by force. There are evidently lively
times ahead, and we shall soon see how the
matter will Misunderstanding NerS.