, 1873-01-07
A Few More Witnesses Examined In Tho "Staton
ffattcr.


debt filed with tho Register. Ills objection to
lheir allowance Was that Tho policy provided
Tint no recovery should bo Ind unless tho proof
Of lona bo 1naac to tho Company and suit com.
moncod within ono year from tho time of logs.
Colonel Walcolt said his view was that when
any creditor Of corporation or individual filed
petition In bankruptcy against such corporation
Or idiridual, thoro bo commenced suit agninHt
1t or Him for tho benefit Of Rll other creditors,
aud If tho suit resulted In tocrco Of banlrupt.
cy, ho was entitled to tho benefits, Nc legal OF
equitable claimB could III his opinion, DO barred
boforo tho oxha1tstIon OF tho asaotB.
Alr. Mitchell represented acaao in which, artor
the loss occurred md previous to tho Assignee
boing appointed, tho Socretnry Of tho Company,
tho Mntuul, waived tho necessity Of furnish ing
a proof Of LOGS. Tho question to bo decided was
who.hcr tho Secretary had the right he assumed
Tho Registor had rofuuod to allow tho claim. Mr.
MITCHELL desired to mako no af81inont.
tint the clauao In tho policy limiting tho timo
within which suit might bo brought to twelve
months being u condition, should lo construed
tiy sitTiiotly g aga!nst tl!o Company it being the
thun the statute OF Limitation which had al
ways beon strictly construed against Tho debtor,
md, therefore, only n suit i'll 4 court
Of ;, law or cha,1cory was barred
~ eAb CIit1Ig tLit u CuuEE VI DnuK1nrtc9
wns neither, but creature Of Htatuto, with for1na
anu proceeG.n,;H entirely diferont and uulluown
to courts of law nnd chanecry. That United
states Courts vi common law wolo bound by
State statutes OF Limitations, and bankruptcy
COURTS had several Times hold tilnt they wero
not bound by such statutes. aud Ind allowed
claims to ho proved which Woro otherwise
barred. Ho claimed TINT tho parties TO The con-
tract did not contemplate bankruptcy proceed
ingu when they made tlis stipulation, ind TINT
it did not, end should not, apply to tlsou.
Glr. hnlitll urged that tie limitation CLAUSE in
tho policies was binding. uo could not imagine
u Low Il, tao inability Of company to pay its debts
sary ntepH, within lho specified tilno, to estub-
lsI1 his claim against tho bankrupt.
piasSS ueorS' a M RoGse aw 1apyosS"fE o E,,o W cs
against tho Mutual sccnrity, s.;, notico of loss,
as required by tho policy, was given, but,
through some mstale, or \ suppositiou tint no
proof would bo required, it was not made. When
tile Company was adjutllcatcl bankrupt, his
centa supposed NIL proceedings, 60 fur as tho
Subsequently, however, within proper timo,
proof OF debt ,Tas made to tho Negistol but tho
Assignee, ho undcr.tood onjcc.ea to tho claim.
The question w'1s whether there hui boen com
PLUNGE with tho requirements Of tho policy. uo
took tllo position That, artor tho filing Of Tho
petition to adjudgo tho Company u bankrupt,
any proof of debt to tho Company would laso
boon unnecessarily because, nf,or tllat time, tho
to rolieye or bind tllcusclycB. -
Tho Court said ho would re1cgvo hie decision.
THE "srArE" 3iA11En.
Tho matter OF tlto Loau mud Trust Dauk
ngRinst tho Stnto insurance Company WIS re-
s.imcd yesterday morning, before aIr. Register
HibhGlst.
alr, D. ". Keith teHtined TINT his firm bad
had policy In tho Company for $4,000, which
was adjusted for = ,lo0. lie sold tho claim; to
whom, ho did not know. 4 goutlonlan called in
tile store. aud said 10 Fcv cont was all tho COM
pnny would pay. IIo s:oud not know tho MAJ, il
ho were to Beo him. Lie did not know Mr.. Yan
1nwaEon. Mr.. Kcitll'd impression was That tho
man was buying for tho Company.
Abijal. Keith, partner Of the last witness. waa
assigned the policy, but did not know for Whose
benett it was assigned.
l1enry ". King hed had y policy for $4,000,
adjusted for ~ ,oo0, and soll it Tor $500 to q
broker by the nanle Ut Co.'s, whom tho Witness
supposed to 10 acting for h1nEclf. 1ie waE told
by the broker that tho price ho offered was MI
that tho Company could pay, ar'l tint ho wanted
to use the policies as o set-oT aHninst tho Com
ptny do had talked to slr. IIurlbut, President
Of Tho Company, prior 10 tho salo.
Alr. Aver objected to this testimony, Gud tho
objection was SUSTAINED, Mr.. King stating thut
he did not 1ntond to rovoko tho Rlle.
IN the afternoon, Mr.. David Bla}seley said tho
PoM Printing Company lad policy for 50 QUO.
J. u. AlcalullGn, thcir busileHs manager, tool.
lilo policy, and deposited 10 rer cent to tho
cret ! Of tho Company. That Wau all lie know
of it.
Tho Court then adjourned till thia r'orning.