New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1873-11-18
FINANCIAL TOPICS.
Jay COOKE & cos PROSPECTS.

Il .ruvp npr Az OBTAINED ny TIE DEFENDANTS
rNpyGyAuoS oP THE CREDrToRs-CoMrI.AINTs
THAT TIE FIRM is NOT ACTING FAIRLY.
lpY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRiBUNEi
w,sprsGroS. Nov 17.-The bankruptcy case Of
lay Cooke & Co. came up again IN the District
Count to-day. The policy pursued by the defend
s,,s from the first, of securing as long delay as
,ossible before final decision is reached,
vas persisted in, much to the indigna-
ZION of the creditors, and further postpone
ment until Dec. was obtained. The
creditors complain that the firm lie not acting fairly
toward Them in thus resisting the lssuing of de-
cree that in the end viii be inevitable. They allege
that no account has been rendered of the cash
of the house and freely charge that these assets
employed 10 satisfy the demands Of favored credi-
tors to induce them to withdraw from the proceed
ings and TO compromise with Others the basis of
payment OF 10 per cent cash and the remainder in
Northern Pacific bonds. They say that il is entirely
unprecedented for debtor in bankruptcy to retain
control over his cash assets after his insolvency has
been established by suspension and failure to re-
sumo at the end Of tho II days prescribed by law.
These complaints expressed in conversation, were
not presented 20 the Court, the proceedings having
reference chiefly to technical point whether there
had been proper service of notice upon all the de-
fendantS. A personal service was proved upon the
9 notice in a Washington newspaper was set up as
sufficient service upon the nonresident partners.
The defendants counsel argued that the law required
personal service upon all the partners, if their resi-
5ences could be discovered. Judge Humphreys de-
cided that be would not hold that the service by
publicaiOn was either irregular or erroneous, but
chat il would be safer to comply with the sugges-
ton Of the counsel for the debtors and endeavor to
make personal service upon the nonresident debt
rs outside of the District, and he would continue
tho cases for that purpose BY agreement between
she counsel, they were postponed until Dec. 2.
The two cases pending are those of Clifford Arrick
and R. L. Buckner. Arrick's petition. fled Oct. 3,
seges the earliest act of bankruptcy charged in any
Of the begun, within or without the district
hat Of Buckner, an act OF bankruptcy that
did not mature until after the filing of the
earlier petitions in Philadelphia, namely, the
suspension of payment of the commercial
paper of the firm for period of fourteen days. For
these it is thought that the courts here will
obtain jurisdiction over the estate Of the bankrupts
Arriok is now out of the fight, having as stated by
bis counsel to-day. ceased to be plaintiff in the
case. Some arrangement has been made by which
be has secured bis claim. The case of BuclSner only
will proceed, but under the law he has all the add
vantage Of Arrick's prior petition.
A PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY FILED AGAINST THE
FIRM BY JOHN Z. FOX & co. OF PHILADELPHIA.
Notwithstanding tine persistent attempt by the
Clerk Of the United States District Court to keep
bankruptcy proceedings secret, it has been asoer-
tanned that John L. Fox g. Co. ot Philadelphia have
fled petition in bankruptcy against jay Cooke ~
Co, the allegations in which are substantially as
follows: On Sept. l6 1873, Fox 81 Co. sent for col
lection to jay Cooke 81 Co. a promissory note for
si0,SS5 10 made by the New-YOrk and Brooklyn
Saw-Ml Company. The note was dated tSept. 10,
1873 and payable on Sept. II of the same year.
On that day the Fulton Bank OF this city to the
agent OF jay Cooke & Co. "a certified check for the
amount of the note, and on Sept. is Jay Cooke Il
Co. credited Fox d Co. with the amount OF the
check. Fox & Co. then demanded payment. and it
was refused.
Judge Blatchford granted an order requiring jay
Cooke & Co. 70 show cause why they should not be
adjudicated bankrupts