, 1874-11-01
LOCAL MISCELLANY.
TIE scAMMQN CASE.

TIE SCAMMON CASE.
The case ip bankruptcy of the United State
Mortgage Company against Jonathan Youn
6camuon was resumed in the United States Gil
cult Court, before Judge Blodgett. yesterda
morning. upon .uo nosioos.-one BY complain
ant for {: rule to show cause why the responder
should not submit list OF his creditors and il
dcbtedncss. and the other, by respondent, t
strike from the files the amended petition OF th
complainant, On the ground that the Unite
states Mortgage Company did not constitut
one-foarth iu value and oue-third in number 0
tho creditors. Wir. Dexter. Esq, appeared 70
The complainant, and Judge Trumbuli and Mr
Aver for the respondent.
On the motion to strike the amended petit1o1
from the files,
JUDGE TRUMBULL
said that it had been shown that the Unitee
States Mortgage Company did not constitute
one-fourth in number OF the creditors Of Hr
Scammon. He recited the testimony showing
that Mr. Sansome had knowledge OF numerous
notes OF Mr. Scammon in the hanls Of different
brokers, and ct various judgments against Mr.
Sca.nmon. When it was shown that Atr. San
coma knew that his principal did not constitute
one-fourtf in number of the creditors, and a
third in value. the Court would not give tu1e to
make an exhibit Of the creditors. This would
simply enable Mr.. Sansome to go fishing and
ruptcy proceedings. It could not be that the
bankrupt law was to te administered for any
euch purpose. It appeared that nr. Sansoue
was not justified in his amendment, and there
fore it should be stricken from the file.
WRIT DEXTER, ESQ.
for the petitioner, gave an outline OF Mr. San
eome's testimony. in which it WAS shown that he
was familiar with Mr.. Scamnaons affairs. IL 1878
be became 8ware OF the fart that Mr.. Scammon
was becoming more and more embarrassed, un-
= It, 1.fI
interest to the United States Mortgage Company.
Mr.. Scammon denied his insolvency, and still de-
MED it,-froun 4 mistaken policy. Counsel be-
lieved, for it was unquestionable th.t Mr. Scam
mons financial matters we're IN critical condi-
tion. It Was we'll known in the community that
he had failed to meet his obligations, and that
his two banks had Suspended payment: and
therefore i. was known that Mr. Scammon, il not
tnrefeselr bankrupt, Was greatly embarrassed
The law Clearly provided that full list OF cred
itors should be furnished, In due
couree it would be shown ttas fraud
ulent Gales and transfers had been mado by
1fr. Scamrnon. to the express exclusion Of the
debt of the United States Mortgage Company.
Efforts had been made to have other creditors
Join in a petition, but they had refused because
they considered their debts against 3fr. Scammon
sufficiently secured. On the 9Th day OF April.
after the complainant hsd gone into court for
Judgment. Mr.. Scamu1ous trust deeds to tho
amount Of S245,000 were filed for record in the
Recorders Office. Later on, S1o0.0oo in trust
deeds we're recorded, making 10 all S545,oo0
worth of property conveyed BY 1lr. Scammon.
II was said that this vas to secure certain bonds,
but by h1r. Scammou's testimony it itappeared that
the deeds were made to secure certain unsecured
creditors. leaving out the Mortgage COMPANY"
which Was, therefore. one-fourth in va1us aud
oo=-thi1d in number Of the creditors.
Through bad ADVICE, Mr.. scamnon had in
sisted upon conhlc: and litigation With his cred
itors. assuming to dictate the terms on which he
would pay them. It would be an extraordinary
construction of the law it any man. however
eminent in position II the community, wero
allowed privileges denied to men in humber
circumstances In conclusion, Mr.. Dexter said
that it must be held that the trust deeds were
absolute securities to all except the creditors ex
pressly excluded from the deeds.
MR. AVER.
for the respondent. said that Mr. Scannou had
given tha trust deeds to secure certsa unsecured
creditors, aud e1cludlr none. The question was
whether the petitioning creditor was in a position
to require A1r. Scammon to make list OF his
creditors, and an exhibition of his indebtedness.
It was not proved that the Mortgage Company
constituted one-fourth in number and one-third
in value Of the creditor. The language Of the
law was explicit on that point II any person or
were insu6iciently SECURED in their
:1ain against 3lr. Scammop. they held nroya5'e |
debts against the estate. It appeared that at |
the time of making the affidavit ,l1r. Sapsomo |
knew. or had reason to know. that various cred
tors OF Mr. Scammon we're not secured. and that
. number Of notes and judgments wers out
standing against A1r. Scom1non. He also
knew that there were a number OF notes |
II Mr. Scammon in the hands Of brokers |
for sale. Knowing all this. Mr. Sansome ma5e
affidavit that the United States MORTGAGE Com
pany constituted one-fourth in value and one
third in number OF Mr.. Scammon's creditors.
Counsel claimed no rights for ir- Scamnaon that
lid not belong to any other man, but he held |
that the Court would not tolerate any fraud upon
he Bankrupt act. az would be the case if the Pc
:ition Of Mr. Sansome to pass unchallenged.
The Court TOOK the pa~ere fo- examination, to
yive decision at some future time.