The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-02-15
BUSINESS IN THE OTHER COURTS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
The Glenham Ma ufacturing Company
Important Case.


Important Case.
Some time since petition was filed praying
that the Glenham Manufacturing Company be de-
clared bankrupt On this petition Judge Blatch-
ford adjudicated the company bankrupt, and
Floyd Bailey was appointed trustee. 1t appeared
that the Marshal, acting under the warrant OF the
Court took possession OF the property Of the COM
pany; but 1t is claimed that before he did actual
possession Of 1t had been obtained by Mr..
Carpenter, who had been, in certain pro-
ceedings in the State Court appointed as
receiver of the estate. The Marshal claims that he
holds the property by virtue of the warrant issued
from the United States District Court, but he has
been called upon. under an order Of the State
Court TO show cause why he keeps possession Of
the property or be punished for contempt.
MI. j. II. Choate, who appe AIRED on behalf OF the
petitioning creditors, said that the property was
now in the custody OF the Marshal and he asked
that It be delivered TO the trustee. With regard to
protection or indemnity to the Marshal, the Court
had the whole of the property 1t was in the keep
ing OF the Marshall and three-fourths OF the credi
tors had united in a deed to the trustee.
Mr.. J. G. Carter, who appeared as counsel for
the Marshal, observed that every step to be taken
In this case should be taken with care. Mr.. Choate
had said that the Marshal had taken possession OF
the property. 1t had been surrendered to him,
and he should be protected in its possession. The
receiver in the State Court had been appointed
prior TO the adjudication IN bankruptcy, and he
had taken possession Of the property before the
Marshal acquired any control OF IT. To proceed
with this case in two courts was simply impossible
One or other Of the courts must yield. conflict
between them would be avoided by ascertalnlng
which Court first acquired jurisdiction. II The
United states Court would never interfere with IL
by lts process. There might pc something in
the Bankrupt law that overrides that prin-
cipe; but If there was he did not know anything
or it. The possession obtained by the United
States Marshal was obtained without force 1t
tIu IA ,v,An
authority OF the receiver What was the effect OF
that Was that such an acquiescence as would
authority over the estate An order had been
issued calling upon the Marshal to show cause why
he should not surrender the property to the re-
ceiver or be punished for contempt. He mr. Car
teri had hoped that Mr. Carpenter, the receiver,
who was moving in this matter IN the State Court.
would see that such thing as collision OF
authority between the State and federal courts
should be avoided
Mr. Chcate remarked that when the Marshal
went up 10 Glenham he got possession OF the prop
erty, and II the receiver there with his subor.
d;nates he never heard Of him until two months
after-untIl in fact, he was about TO turn the
property TO the trustee The duty Of this Court was
70 maintain l5s Possesslon, once peaceably and
shall, who, having once lawfully obtained posses
sion, should not have 1t taken from him by another
tribunal. The personal liability OF the Marshal in
this case, as It seemed 10 him (Mr. Choate), had
been greatly exaggerated This property having
oeen acquired ~ tne Marsha, unaer 1se wapans
course OF bankruptcy proceedings would be dis
tributed among the creditors. If the receiver did
bring suit against the Marshal what damage
could the receiver show he had suffered The
creditors would have the legal and beneficial re.
suits OF the property in dispute.
After some brief remarks from Mr.. ]. G. Carter
Judge Blatchtord said the principle was well
settled that the Court never Issued it's warrant to
the Marshal to take possession OF property out OF
the hands OF a receiver in the State Court. He had
always held that property in the hands OF q re-
ceiver in the State Court could be disturbed at
all. When the Marshal took property out OF the
hands OF q receiver III the State Court ne must give
1t up; he would no more sanction a Marshal tax
ing such property than he would sanction re-
Seivsr IN 'a me- STATE court aShg ptopery gu. Of Ihe
property in his hands at the time the Marshal took
1t the Marshal hal no business TO touch IL, and
Sir. Cnoate read an afudavit, which contained a
statement TO the effect that the receiver voiun-
tarily allowed the Marshal to take possession at
Mr.. J. c, Carter said the warrant did not tell the
Judge ss the 10 Marshal took this prop
erty away from the receiver be must give 1t back.
As 20 indemnity to the Marshal, the trustee can
Some further discussion having ensued. the
Court denied the motion, with leave 70 Mr..
what indemnity should be gwen TO the Marshal
On case he has to surrender the property to the
receiver win be taken INTO CONSIDERATION. 100.
g. 900, 0OO Most OF the property referred so,c0n-
sists OF real estate
Business in Bankruptcy.
VOLUNTARY PETITIONS
Edward s. Fearing, Andrew b. Chalmers, Ed
ward F Church. Edson Bradley, William L. Brad
ley, simon Gustnal Ithamar A. Carpenter, James
r. Hasey Elias W. Taylor, The Recording Steam
Gauge Company, Theodore Lexow, theodore A.
Voigt.
ADJUDICATToNS.
Fgydlus Roessner, Isaac Harris, Philip Lam
decker Patrick Mann, Joseph Cohen, Simon Haber-
man, Simon Newman, Matthew smith, Theodore
Humbert, Mary L. wingert. Michael McElarney,
John Fyie, Jr.. John Honloser. August schneider,
Edmund Walsh, ]. W. Coburn, George o. Evans,
Leslie G. Slocum. Sutclir Rushvorth David scbn. !