, 1872-11-20

| upon anu Qlb I1Eut u HeL~Qu Q1STeEaTQeQ.
at this time, GeorgeC. Smith, President OF
the bank, was in Europe, but VAS expected
home soon, and the Assignee was asked to delay
till his return, upon the promise or suggestion
that 3 settlement could be then had. He was
| awaiting his return when the first petition yae
filed for the removal OF the Assignee, followed in
q few days by the petition Of Mr. King to the
/ same end.
So far, there seems to be no GROSS negligence
| in the prosecution Of the claim Of the bankrupt
against the bank, and the officers Of the Com
pany. But the evidence also shows that among
| the assets turned over to the Assignee in MAY,
| by Mr. Hurlbut, WAS large claim for re-inp1r-
ance issued to the State, BY the Teutonia Insur-
anee Company of Cleveland. This Company
| had removed al the risks of the State outstand-
| ing, up to some time in February, 1871, and had
also been made insolvent by losses in the Chica-
so fire, and it's affairs were in the hands Of Re-
ceiver, under the Ohio law. Byreason of some Pc
cuiarp provisions Of law ora Court order, the time
nearly expired, and it was plainly the first duty
! of the Assignee Of the State to attend to it.
| which he seems to have done with COM
! mendable promptness, and all the claims against
! the Teutonla were presented and allowed in
| time. This involved, as the evidence showed, 9
| laborious collection and examination Of proofs,
| which we're widely scattered and complicated by
1 the embarraBsments surrounding the Teutonla
| and its affairs, and the fact that the policy
holders Of the State, whose risks had been rein
~
| the officers Of the Teutonia, who returned them
| to the policy-holdors who still held them, so it
became necessary to hunt them up. It does not
seem to me then that the charge OF negligence
! and want of fidelity is made out by the proofs.
When the papers came into the hands OF the
Assignee, he seems to have set himself promptly
| at work about that which most required atten-
ion,-the Teutonia, and was busy with 1t when
the first petition was tiled; ne had 1 also acted
given, and awaited only Mr. Smiths return to
settle with the bank without litigation.
The evidence fails to show that there was any
understanding Or agreement, express or implied,
or him and the bank, before his election, that
fairs hS HD0ut Of " the % Company c2 D IN 'D' their
interest, or that he was . party to the manipula-
tions by which the set-or claims we're concocted.
Nor do see in the testimony any evidence that
after his election he acted in the interest Of the
Smiths, or under their control. The questions
between him and them were purely legal ones.
It was not necessary to q settlement that he
should involve himself N personal controEer-
81, or denounce them with hard words.
The evidence does show that for. some years
he had, to some extent, beeHthe legal adviser of
the Smiths, in some OF their business transac-
tions, and to some extent, before the fire,
acted for the Insurance Company. It
also appears that at the time the
creditors met to elect an Assignee, the Smiths
and their friends had obtained q large majority
of the claims then proven, and that their votes
elected A1r. Perkins, most Of the other creditors
also voting for him. It is natural to suppose
the Smiths, controlling the election, would put
in some person in whom they had confidence.
But this, standing alone, does not show that
the Smiths did exercise any such overweening
influence over the Assignee as to make him for
get his duties to all interested. The parties elect
ing an Assignee must be presumed to know
that, when once elected, he becomes the officer
Of the Court, and belongs to no set OF creditors.
His conduct is under the control of the Court,
and creditors must be presumed to know it.
now come to the second charge, that OF re-
fnsing to give information in regard to the value
of the assets Of the bankrupt, and the probable
value of these claims. It might be enough to
dismiss this BY saying that the proof wholly fails
IS sSeapsn rue n @hen asked By Certain
persons as to the value Of their GLAZING, that he
did not know their value. But most, if not all,
these interviews were before Judge Drummond's
Assignee, their claims we're not worth much.
While it is the duty Of an Assigneeto give credi-
tors all the information nhe can, yet he is not
bound to give them an opinion on doubtful ques-
information would be gross malfeasance, yet
it does not appear that be did So When interro-
gated, the affairs Of the company were in q
most unpsomising condition, and the Assignee
had ns n3ason R9tsng to g. Eean by ss5 il mpaTt t.
reinsured in the Teutonia, and the register de-
ecribing them delivered to that Company. un-
til it wa5 examined no one could state the CLAIMS
against the bankrupt. It Was an UNKNOWN guam
tity till adjudicated.
This brings me- to the confederation Of the
third charge-the fraudulent settlement OF the
claim against the Ieutonia,-the facts in regard
to which seem to be that the claim against the
Teutonia WIS adjusted at about S170, 600. The Teu
tonia was winding up it's assets we're small, and
many unavailable, and Its liabilities large. Under
these circumstances the Assignee received and
accepted an offer Of So, sou for the demand.
Other parties holding claims against the Teu-
tonia ask more than Mr.. Perkins received, but
no more has yet been paid, though more may be
realized by those who hold off. It is possible
is no evidence that he acted corruptly, or with
any other purpose than that Of benefting the
creditors and that, too, upon information which
he had taken much trouble to obtain. I do not
see how he can be charged with having acted
either negigently or corruptly IN this tranEac- |
tion.
The fourth, and last, charge is that of having t
faken preference as 8 creditor, after knowledge |
Of insolvency. The facts are, that it appeared |
BY the books Of the company that, some time in
account Of the bankrupt for $500, in payment of |
bill due to A1r. Perkins for services rendered |
before the fire. |
lIr Perkins explanation is, that in January,
1Hf1, 0e Q1u SuU1o "uEk lQT LuG company a8 AZ |
torney, for which he charged s406, and they
agreed to pay it. At the same time he overdrew
his account With the National Loan and Trust
Company to the amount OF about |
500, and, in adjusting this, turned
over to the bank the account for $500. At this
time the insurance company was solvent. From
that time on the bank held the account, but it
seems not to have been settled until after the
fire.
Upon these facts, 7 do not see how Perkins can
claruaH with
ence At the time he turned the account over
to the bank and made the agreement With the
insurance company to pay it to the bank the
company WAS solvent. II the bank had com
pleted the transaction, BY presenting the bill at
once and taking the check then in payment,
which they took after the tire. no |
one would have thought OF questioning |
the transaction It seems clear to me !
it is the bank, il any one, who has taken the
preference. Certainly it was not ,A1r. Perkins, |
and his explanation must be taken as satisfao- |
tory, and the disqualification is not made out.
The Judge then went On to explain the rea~
~