The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-28
BROOKLYN COURTS.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT couar-IA BANKRUPTCY.

The Brooklyn Market Litigation Alleged
NfiscOnduct of the Observation-Disclosures for
His Romoval-Decision Of Judge Benedict.
In the matter OF Ernest Sacchi, bankrupt
This comes before the Court upon petition for
the removal Of an assignee chosen by the credtors
Of the bankrupt. The petition is filed by Gustavus
A. Sacchl, who, since the adjudication OF bank
ruptcy, has become the sole creditor by the pur1
chase OF all the debts. II the petitioner had sought
order for the substitution of an assignee OF his
own choosing In place OF the one originally chosen
by the creditors upon the ground that he had be4
come the sole creditor, should have felt disposed
TO grant the order. But such an order Is del
cliDed and the retention OF the present assigned
asked to be made dependent upon the declsion
or the Court anu the charges OF misconduct made
against HIM In the petlton. The complaint against
the assignee Is, that without sufficient cause, nd
attached two mortgages upon the Dankrupts propJ
erty known as the "Brooklyn Market" one Cd
$4,000 held by Henry MILL the other for $50, 600,
held by the petitioner. and tnat he has delayed a
sale OF the property for the purpose OF obtaining the
rents in order to spend them IN litigation. l have
examined with some care the circumstances UNDER
which the assignee interposed defence TO the
mortgages In question, and stopped the forecosure
sale OF the property In question, and ind nothing
to support charge OF miscOnduct against tnlS
attack upon the mortgages. l confirmed
this opinion by the fact OF the creditors
except tne pedilioner Appeared 10 nave compaineH
gage Of $l5 900 was attacked Tor usury does not ap-
pear mere to complain; and that when the mort
father Of the bankrupt, was attacked he bought up
oil the creditors Interested to push the attack at
loss OF $4,000, as he says. In view OF all the Ctr
cumstances, am inclined to think that 1t would
have been good ground Tor an application for the
removal OF the assignee II he had omitted attack
the mortgages. Nor Is the method adopted by
him In MS enaeayor TO release this property
open TO criticism. The charge that he delayed
collect rents 10 spend In litigation Is wholly
show That he ever collected any rents, or now mucn
ne ne mas spent In litigation: Inc assignee admits
that he mas paid or become liable for ices in the de-
fence OF the suits brought to foreclose The mort
cages referred 10 but no amount Is stated proved.
so lar as the evidence shows. there fact winch
Will warrant the inference tnat the defence OF the
suits was nterposed for any other reason except
protect the property from what he supposed to be
illegal demands 1t Is true that the assignee might
have applied sooner than he aid for an order
directing the sale OF the property but when
ne did apply the petitioner opposed, and
moreover II Is by no means clear that the property
could, with due regard to the interests the crcd-
tors be sold earlier than IL was. II the petitioner
desired for his own interest to realize upon his
mortgage, proper proceedings on his part In the
Court would have given him relief Il Dillon, Gill.
The petitioner failed to apply TO ths and took pro-
ceedngs In the State tribunals, thus compelling tho
assignee TO resort to injuncons In order stop MIS-
proceedings there and saved the property for dis
trbutlon among the creditors in TINS Court where
Its distribution belonged The prayer OF the petit
toner therefore denied, with costs OF the pro-
ceedings to be paid out OF the fund.