The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-07

Another Legal Raid On the ''Rine'' Property
Argument on the Notion to Continue tie
Injunction Tho Case Adjourned
to Next Tuesday.

The partial sale Of the new York Printing Com.
pany's property on Friday, upon an execution
issued to the SheriR and It's interruption ny n tenn
porS injunction granted ny The Courts, we're fully
described IN Yesterdays HERALD An application
10 have the Injunction continued was made yester-
DAY morning before Judge Barbour sitting In
Special Term Of the supreme Court. The Following
il brief e rr I'd
HISTORY OF THE CASE,
showing the preliminary facts leading to this de-
noncmeat:-n the early part ot November a suit
was brought against the New York Printing Com
pany by the Ocean National Bank Tor 100000, and
on the 18th OF the month Judgment by defaalt was
obtained against the company for this amo1nr
and the execution placed in the hands OF
the sheriff Pursuant TO the usual custom, the
sheriff advertised the property for sale; the red nag
was displayed from the premises, and rho auction
eer proceeded 10 knock the property down to the
lowest bidder, ana was busly engaged IN receiving
the mods OF the anxious purchasers, when suddenly
q stay OF proceedings was interposed, putting an
est0ppel or all the proceedings. THIS stay was 90
tanned at the instance OF the executors OF Taylor
estate 1t was alleged by these executors that the
estate was Interested 10 the amount OF $50 900 In
the property that they knew nothing OF the premi-
nary proceedings In tue Court or OF the intended
sale until the 10th OF last month. and that the sale
under the hammer would eopardlze their interests.
IT was further stated thar the property Is worth
s500,0o0 and that, sold al public auction II would
not probably realize more than fractional part OF
Its value.
ARGUMENT UPON THE INJUNCTION. M
When the case came up In the Court yesterday an
effort was made by Mr.. x. X. Lawrence ar, one OF
tho defendants counsel 10 adjourn the hearing. on
the ground OF The Illness OF his associate counsel,
Mr.. Rufus Andrews. Mr.. fancber. appearing 10:
the bank, opposed any adjournment. lie stated
that they had taken the trouble to widely advertise
tins SALE and that there were people from Chicago,
prOpefty--It beng specially lifted for newspaper
businesswhO would be likely to leave If there were
delay. The Court directed the argument to proceed
This matter settled Mr. Lawrence read the petition
Of MI Tracy, one OF the executors OF the late James
j.. aylor, setting forth that
MR. TAYLOR WAS LARGE STOCKHOLDER
and lultner that the Judgment IN this suit was OBJ
tanned by default the officers Vi the company put
ting IN no defence, but abscOnding; That the bank
had ample collateral for the debt; that II did not al-
pear that the directors ever authorized these loans
;tia that tne properly OF the COMPANY was wor5h
Mr.. Fancher, in reply, read an aiidavlt of Mr..
DAVIS the Receiver Of Tie bank mai The bank held
no collalerals except the personal undertaking OF
Mr.. WibOur and MS associates to pay any leelency
not recovered on the Judgment; that tney nad been
forced 10 insure the property at cost OF nearly
thousand dollars per month, besides the cost of the
Sherin's keepers; that the levy mad been made
on the lItn OF DECEMBER and thai the Centre street
property had been sold for $4,000. He also read
the aildavlt OF the President OF the bank. This
laterals and averred that the loans were regularly
made on application OF the officers Of The company,
anu utlly CueCkcu OUT ny tHOSc OHcers. Mr. Fan
cher argued TINT all the proceedings for the judg
ment were regular and the
VALIDITY or THE CLAIM
could not be lmpeached. The petitioners Anew by
their own admission, oil this levy the 2Oth, and
yet had not appied lur the INJUNCTION till the very
day Oi the sale; The claims against the city were
not, perhaps, under present circumstances,
the safest reliance for creditors. lie ciled the
Revised statutes TO show That there should be
no stay OF execution after Judgment. In response
to the above MI. Lawrence urged that the property
or the company was worth nail million. aud WIS
now 10 be sacrificed by an Oicer oil II, who put the
SUMMONS IN HIS POCKET
and then abscOnded The Sheriff had sold the
whole Ceutre street property bulk, including IN t
o valuable lease not mentioned In his advertise
ment, Tor less tnan One-thIrd Of its worth.
Ths the Court should not permit. The
petitioners should at least he given time before
TINS property, which they were so much in
rerested should be sacrificed, to inquire whether
the company really owed Lnis large sum or not
Justice Barbour said that he did that there
| was any tling III this application. There was no
] pretence that the judgment was irregular, evi
dence even tending 10 lmpeach the validity OF the
claim. Tnat the property was worth more bnan 1t
| was selling Tor was
COMMON COMPLAINT
The best evidence oil value was mat Which il would
sell for after proper advertising and with sufficient
bidders. There was DrOO or fraud. StllI. the
matter was large he would let II go 10 Tues
day for further hearing Oh the petitioners Hing a
bond for 81 900. Permission was given TO le lie
bond tomorrow.