The New York herald., 1873-11-22
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

No. 104 Brent, Surviving Executor, &c. VS.. Mary
land, for Use OF Worfeld-Error to the Supreme
Court or the District OF C0lumba.-This was an
action on trustees bond against the surviving
executor OF one of the sureties; and the main
question is whether, in the case OF an order of dis
tribution and payment made to the trustee, it Is
necessary to the maintaining OF suit upon his
bond that 1t should appear that service of the
order was made on him and demand made or pay
ment of the sum specified therein. The Court
below held that the trustee was bound to know the
fact OF the order and that service was not there
fore necessary, and the Judgment was Tor the
plaintin. The same question Is presented here, the
appellant contendlng that, without the ayerment
OF such notice. the suit cannot be maintained I.
I. Crittenden for plaintiff in error; S. S. Henkle
for defendant
No. 107. Dubois ct al. VS.. Walker-Appeal from
the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New
York.-The question in this case Is whether, in
suit brought by parties in New York for themselves
and other creditors against parties in another
State in the federal courts, citizen OF the same
State of the defendants may be held as creditor
ana participate in the benefits OF the Decree In
this case the Court decided the question in the
affirmative and allowed the resident creditor TO
stand on the same footing as those residing out OF
the State. and who brought the suit, holding that
the proceeding was supplementary and dependent
and not original. 1t is here maintained that the
petition OF Walker, the resident creditor, was an
original proceeding and, as such, could not be
brought in the federal Court, because he and the
defendants in the suit we're citizens or the same
State. p Phillips for appellant; r. T. Merrick Tor
appellee.
No. 112. GenDs ct al VS.. Johnson ct al.-Appea
from the Circuit Court for the Northern District OF
Georgia.-This was q proceeding to set aside an
alleged fraudulent conveyance OF real estate to
avoid the claims Of creditors. The conveyance was
by Johnson to his wife, and the defence was that
she had paid Tor 1t and placed all the improvements
upon it ov her own earnings. gained with ner hus-
bands consent; Ihe appeal urges that money
nuq md
cannot be vested in the wife for the benefit OF her
separate estate free from the debts Of her husband.
Only when living apart from her husband can such
be the case. The Court erred in sustaining the
defence. Boyles & Arnold for appellants; appel
lees not appearing
No. 11o. Gacey VS.. Irwin ct aL-Error to the
Circuit Court for the Eastern District OF Virginia
This action was in ejectment, to recover land in
Alexandria sold for taxes under the Direct Tax
act OF 1852. The claim was that prior to the
sale tender OF the tax was made, and that it was
declined by the commissioners because it was not
made by the owner in person. fhe Court below
held that this tender rendered the sale void 9nd
the Judgment was for the claimants. 1t i5 mere
urged that no formal tender was made, and that
agent OF the claimants, merely declined to recog-
niZe any tender or payment except by the owner
in person. In consequence OF this declaration no
that the agent was, IN fact, prepared to make one.
For this reason a reversal is asked Mr.. Will
lopshby Tor plaintlT in error $. f. Beard ior de-
lendants.
No. ia. Batesville Institute ct al. vs. Kaufman
ct al-Appeal from the Circuit Court for the East
ern District OF Arkansas.-In this case Woomack
d Welch were adjudged creditors of the Insti-
tute and were entitled to lien thereon for their
debt. Being indebted TO Hirsch Alder. they
made O deed oil trust for the benefit OF the latter
firm. This firm assigned the deed and the notes OF
Woomack & Welch to kaufman and others, and
the question is whether the assignment by Hirsch
& Alder vested in them title to the Judgment the
mechanics lien Of WoOmack Welch, so that the
assignees could file bill In their own names. The
Court below sustained the disputed title and over
ruled demurrer making the point, and 1t is here
in the names OF Hrsch Alder, Tor their use
and benefit, or should have made that firm de-
PENDANTS, so as to have completed the assignment
and to have had themselves subrogated to their
rights. A. II. Garland for appellants; w. Rose for
reSDOndenLs,