New-York tribune., 1875-07-13
THE COURTS.
INsOLvEST ASSIGNMENTS AND NOTAR1BS
POWERS.
OPINION FOR THE PLAfSrfFr IN The SUIT OF 1Hs
PRODUCE b, INK AGAINST AUSTIN BALDWIN.

ov,x,oS rop THE pIArSrfFr IN The SUIT or THE
pWoDuCE INK AGAINST AUSTIN BALDWIN.
I'm thc suit of the Produce Bank against Aus
tin Bald in and others Judge Tarremore In the superior
Court Special Term has decided two points OF COD
able importance in The law Of insolvency. Inc sii "A'
brought aside insolvent Assignment bade ny
We'll Brothers to Austin Baldwin. The plaihns VINO
were Judgment creditors charged that the firms schedule
showed SIO5 900 OF Liabilities and actual assets s thah
5000 while large portion oil the alleged cIcu''"''
were IN F,ance where they could not be reached ior III
formation and that these facts were indication OF ifau
The decision turned however, on more techn''i
grounds The nsolvcnt assignment was filed WIN 'he
County Clerk OF this county The assigncc's BOND ana
the nsolycnts schedule fcd is usual, with the
Clerk OF the Court of Pleas. The affidavit to ihe
schedule OF liabilities was taken by Kings oouh'9
notary who had not Hcdundcr the law oi ls'3-a GER
titled copy OF his appointment and his autograph Ss""
ue in this county Judge Freedman holds that the bond
and schedule should have been filed with the same Officer
as the assignment and that owing to the notayS want
Of power TO act In this county the schedule Is nn!.
The following is his opinion
In Juand agt Rathbone t39 n. V, 369 1t was held
20 o9, riit au rsnf 70 chapter is Of the Laws OF
1850. and before compliance win SrctnhS anu y,
said act the assignee il invested only Win an hcnono
title which Is good against creditors. provided II Il theic
after perfected by compliance win these sections pu.
that in OF failure comply the assignment uet
m ndiuged void The assignee in this case was there
fore bound 10 his bond to be nlcd' as rlueu oy
IA
where tc gnment had been recorded 1is mas never
been done. Filing il in the Olce Oi the Cicrh oi 'on""
Peas Il not sufficient. , ,,,,...h,, 4,
Am also Oi tnc opinion TINT the AFFIDAVIT attached t
the scrlnle o. tyCnury 0 the dcblCrs when wa. ncu
Is wholly nsln tHapI"r 500 Uf the LAWS W IL fs'
mcudIng section Chapter Bis Of Laws OF ls',o uocs
nt hell, ne assignee because he has not avalled hlsclI
~ its pr,v- Besides that act does no repeal Dut Is
In ndiiun 10 the secoud section of the act OF $500 a.
construed by the Court OF Appeals, ana CONSEQUENTLY
he connection Wi;I IT, The tliIc or inc Is
-i,r in this case therefore stand on Is1 WIN the
a. ID. compliance with the requirements oi ini' 81.
~ ON, or these requirements is That ccriah ani
d ycr,a with the inventory schc dulc Slcl alluiVlt
can only taken lcOrc officer authorized 10 thc thc
same nf the tiue aud pace at which II Is tax ~ .
The affidavit in question IL dicd rep D. lc|f ilS
vruuc is the CITY und County of New-l orK; ana M
officer who took it subscribed himself Thomas j III
nc, Notary Public, Kings County. Ii Is adhitIed tla'
on tne da, named the said Elney not Notary Pub-
Yoik and that he had not filed Ia the Office of The GERS
uf the city and County of Ncwfork ccrtieu copy %
his apnuinturnt C0anty OF Kings, WIN his AUTO
gap SIGNATURE required ny Chapter so7 oi tr ffiw7
OF l-7;i TINS sia,Utc makes such H1nS cohdll"h pr
crdcut 10 the exercise of uncuOn In any county
m her than the for which the notary Is appOihltu
and ne 10 al implication mach Oi Chapter 1uJ of lhe
Laws uf l-12 as Is IN conflict WITH IT, ,.,.
The detects tar poled ont being sufficient within
the decision the Court VI ppeals III Jdshd dgt iI
render the assignment fraudulent a. aSaihsl tnc
plaintiff II IL unnecessary consider the enect Di l
iiD4 Of the inv cn,or, in the Oice Oi tc Clfh vi llc
CuurI of Common Pleas, instead of i'll the Once of INC
Clerk the Cry and County Oi New orh, 's lu'h ny
Iiic IN section 1l 1860 The painiii - emil
He'd Ia tnc Judgment played for. ID. J NcNahu ap
Iaaed for the plaintiffs; tran>ioi, 11iney Mosher ioi
tuc defendants.