The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-11
He COURTS
Important Decision In Bankruptcy Charge Of
Countsrfeiting--T Yorkville Police Justice.
ship-Collision Case in the Central Park
An Old Municipal Ring cass-Liabili.
ties Of Warehouscmen- Business in
the General Sessions Decisions.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT coua1-A BANKRUPTCY.


A Properly that Has Passed Through Many
Notwithstanding Decision Of Judge BlatcIa-
ford tho Service Of Subp@nas and tho
Jurisdiction Of the Court. .H
Yesterday Judge Blatchf0rd rendered an interest
ing decision IN the case OF Thomas Hyslop assignee
In bankruptcy OF Ely Hoppock vs.. Ely Hopp0cx
Caroline H0pp0ck and Erastus s. Brown. Tho
question disposed OF relates to the proper service
OF suUpGnas so as to bring parties alleged to have
made conveyances and assignments Of property IN
fraud OF their creditors within the jurisdiction Of
the Court We print the main portions OF the de-
clsion. The Judge says:-
The bill IN this case was filed on the 9TH OF Octo
Der. 1871 me PRAYER OF the OIL Is tnat convey
Der IS, 1861 OF lot OF land on Thirteenth street. in
the city OF New York. to me. Samuel Gary. and Q
@ ese Of @ Of on
to one Walter Barnes and which lease was assigned
pock, the wife Of the bankrupt aud assigned by her
November ID, 1857, TO Barnes, and assigned on the
the properties covered BY whlcn conveyances. lease
and assignm ents were devised and bequeatned by
per 20, 1870, to said Caroline Hoppock, may be de.
creed to have been fraudulent ana VOID as
aganstthe creditors OF the bankrupt, ana taat inc
Of action therefore may be decreed to nave vested
In the plainuf, and That the defendant: Brown, VINO
u alleged be receiving the rents OF the properties
may be decreed to account to the plaintiff Tor such
from the Of May s e aTS hs rom sne earsna
with or encumbering the properties and from re-
g ne saa saas me
as nj sn0 w s issued sOp on the 70
November, ls7i and directed to the defendants
On the etn Of October 1871 the Mar.
70 serve the subpoena. In an anldavlt sworn to by
Mr.. Clarke on the TIN Of October 1871, and filed on
eth day or October, 1871. he served the subpoena on
Ely Aopp0ck and Caroline Hoppock, his wife, two
for escn Of the DEFENDANTS at tie dweing house or
usual place OF abode OF hoppock and his wife, No.
ar @
purported to be made under the provisions OF rule
Is IN equity W which saysTne service Of all
by the oficer serving the same to the defendant
personally, or, In case Of husband and wife.
copy thereof at the dwelling house usual place OF
ao0de OF each defendant with some free white per.
such service rule was entered on the 9tn Of No
vember, 1871, taking the OIL as confessed against
the defendants Ely Hoppock and Caroline Hoppock,
ants have come into Court without appearing gen.
eay IN the cause rs ana i move the Court aa the
service, and the AFFIDAVIT thereof and all suDse-
| Quent proceedings OF the plantn Oh the subpoena
| and order, be set aside on the grounds among
| others:-
Firsi-That the subpoena was not made return.
| first Tuesday OF the month.
Second-That the place mentioned In the anldavit
! dwelling house or usual place OF abode Of the de.
| PENDANTS or either OF them.
neither OF the two defendants has been personally
served with q subpoena; that IS West Fourteenth
Ing house or usual place Of ADOBE o. either Of them
and has not been their abode since the 30h Of April
1858; Where the dwelling house or usual place OF
abode oil the defendants has been since June, 1868
or Is now, IL not shown; but would seem 10 be In
dlcated that 1t Is now 10 Canada, II anywhere. Al
dlctiOn or this Court IL Bankruptcy 10 avoid the
consciousness OF frauds committed by him on his
the benefits Of such frauds, may have accom-.
panied nun In his Fight aud although. he
and Dc sS Just GS'f a' ss nss
at Niagara Falls F only for the purpose Of making
Court sittng equity. for i6e purpose OF TINS suit
no Sv ~ na the q
has been made. ms Court cannot decide, on the
evidence, that SO West Fourteenth street mas Deen
at any time since the 3on Of April 1865 the dwell.
Defendants. The question Is one OF tile jurisdiction
which TINS Court, sltting IN equity In this suit mas
sui by process issued and served ses inns ms
rreg1anty m making the sur" ,a this case e r re-
on Inc nr T Monns 'uay 81 the month"; and not
Soa[S on The rs Tuesday Of each month There are
Wv three terms OF each Circuit Court In the
year and hence the general equity rules provide that
the subpoena shall be returnaole on rule day, that
the nrst Monday Of every month shall be rule day.
| and that the return day of the subpoena shall be
tue ucAt Jay, vi TUG ucAJ uty uut Ouc OC-
curing alter twenty DAYS from the time OF issuing
the subpoena The motion must therefore be
granted In respect 10 setting aside the order pro
coiVessO and the alleged service Of the subpoena,
and the aldavt OF such service, and all subsequent
@ the p On tine ana
subpoena. The plaintif also moves that he may be
appointed receiver Of the rents and profits OF the
SAID properties. Inasmuch Mrs. HOppOck Is the
person alleged TO hold the properties adversely to
the plantn, and she has not been served with pro-
cess, aud the defendant Brown Is not alleged to
haze acted otherwise than as agent Tor others In
receiving the rents, the motion Tor receiver must
be denied