, 1875-07-19

~, nir. atAtouFy. ana ltenty trATlord for tho
os'onosl'''' ..........
THE FRASK1rN HASK.
Judge DIo1gett r'ninret opinions In several
chzes hatur:lav n0rninR. Tho 1r4t was IN tho
caao Of }. ID. Harvey, Assignee. ". Frank Hob
lltt and others. This waa + bill to SGT n.isla
~ n5apIn Lombard, aecnrea by trast-deed,
WHICH vas ih tue hands Of the Franklin Bsux,
and br II Transferred to tho defentlanta, xf,
W wero & anss'h at Atlanta. This bank failed Sent.
hs ey 1o % ,e sy ' S The 5
lioblttt Brothers from Tho bank Of about .25-
1D. An thtotvew waa Ind ard the noso Abovo-
iinenti2usd, on which $4,000 Ind beon previous
Y paid "aH transferred In part settlement Of the
cIatm.
Tbs hfsiFnca cAtmcd that tho bank vas In
solvent At tho ime Of tho transfer that iIDbjitt
ntothers know alich Tact and that tho note ~as
given With intent to givs thcm preference.
On tho other band tho defendants alleged that
they thought Il. 4. H1sgn l1l,nsolf owned tbe
note, nnd not Tho bank That I3rrts NAa lntlobtci
~ VIZ phHk' anu "aa 11hing his own property TO
pay thefn. receiving ln turn credit 10 thss
"fnmaat nrhH 9n tho b1oss 10 ol tho hank.
That ~. .usJ ss'n enaa H., .no p'oof eatiailod him
.nas 'ae uank ~ .nc t'na ~ 'ie-tion was tno'.
srns .nas ane ostenaants, tue Hoblists, bad
sonslohe reason 20 Khow that tho bank
s WI t.toiseut. Il haa hus9enhHd tho dar bsfore,
1.. ta nsa nos s'i 1esnoo tno noeohvetsaion between
hi,Ess a a1 onss "ar 'aas =, to slethor tho
na,H souIu Iosunn: GnaHf hlct' circumstances
mans dealing with Bank ras put ~ Inquiry.
a ~ Wou.u hase kno".eoae oi sach iacts a would
causo i. AK ptuoens persoa 20 believe that tho
anV % rroDsss IT, oens m,chs hss0sn'Esnains
",a.. Y VIII VIII "a 1aH whJso uoota were closed
s ..as' W ps'u W usS' "u " a. mapef11. Though
..4 saas "ns ~, . to T.. s.oat nnntcs! ea1harraHa-
sr1, "nu annd 4t,at wv ~t'e 81 e,oaea which sttsr-
hsssoe WIZ 70 uonne win mem ~t'eN cioreu
tin no. taso ann i'sx r., O. sheIF never
psiLB .,t.i auau - .hnt "nHo b1'eSA might
,n". ia not rssya ,ho o%nsn ta aot' vt
a.hiiily or iust,ty .hau, IN ";xna ,so1l ~ u mtehpon
non. Ioy r. 0i,a,td t1Sm Sarn ~ .oI8 "a s state
~ tho h.nt ~, -. ;e,s,isa uiaisa tuo nooGH
~ s,,.,,;t,,, VI tue on'eera
~ Il. hami n1n,oaaJ uJ"s.nuce ~ t!tlS an ohacar
ha own nauncy Tbc hontap pa} ~ ~ n4Hh oeIt WITH
M ths "nta r.,t ~ opsS TX o. .no naaa showed
w.ni,t hayc 5sssd that a'ss1' faor @aI INQUIRIES
,Smo. nAr1 ~ o!1oosca Ga saas iact Ths Judge
t.tnsJ .na s,,5 S aho',Id " sno 9l! Welo s,i'-
aida ,hs str transfor ''''3 o'''ef . "ecsee scs'lhg
n n.nILiry II or sfoc1HoInIas.
-: the eaaa q. tne Mon''tncntal M MILLS vs. Crock
~ WIN t1leu getoro JHueo H!odEett BoHc dars
& agu a'AnEos ln. ~, 1Io satnrdsy no gave hs de-
ayo Taa,t sppeassu 'tom ne e!taeuro shas the
~ ~ 94Eanl4ea 9,a ~ ~, win canal Of 7lG-
1vo, otv!de1 INTO shares Of slo0 each, of which
.aoGsest Ae.o ~ slafes' The Cntnlany bought
un.d de. p1or 70 u e a." ano t 81 81 s9yss
,n-u >NN tst"s VI "@AiEut
l81A snd atter that time to sttIi larger amtunt.
n taa laI OF lot2 tno Manufacturing
SolaP"uF peehuis iusolIeht ana WAH sub
eelocnas @ h.,.t hu1oalcatea pankrnpt. The nait
""s .-.!5;,n I5non8at o3 tde Monunoutal MI y.
a cle9Nof 81 tn9 company, to recover
atom tne ti aelGhaanI, az Hs9cshoIder. tho
amount . Ut ns earn AGAINST tho defancs curpor.
u. nt'on. 1Io nahta sect'en OF tue Law provided
tnat - stoeAnouate u corporations orYan,zcd un-
noe s.,at ~" shona % natio TO creditors to tho
nn'ount a OF the stock held By them respectively
1le ae'endanta c'asn,od that thero Was no evi-
aenee ,.s 10 snow :nas lbo Manufacturing compauy
.na. ~as t,eofpoas.sa unaor rue act OF 1857, and.
to exlstenee uuder some prior law. Iul tho su-
!ietiol coaft ~ aho her Gao on an sr qucs-
tLon nao aisPoseo OF tho point Adversely to tho
o9Asnuan1s' Ao.alog tnat tfe aee Of inst repeal
- ny nnpasca1tlon LIP the Aft ul ls4o. The Com-
!, iooi ahe sne deiondants liability was fixed
by tAat ia.. u wAa objected thst the law OF
20 dsH sePeaon !hat o. 1871 and thAt tho inability
Hi st9cKpo,oeIa ,, Wae 70 90 afccItaned under tho
usiga VIII stoeano.oef liable Tor the amount VI un-
~ stecs' aua rendered u necessary to SO into
Goart an1n OF E1ulsy 60 enforce pasMcnt Tho act
~ lnt1 rspoalsu ali acts fn conflict with IL. but
sno nHoaaty o! ne deiendanss "as fixed by tho
". h, u @ ao5.I and ses.oa r1shss wofo acquitted
" "nlci coaia not 10 dlvcatoo. Besides, 4 Hould
Oo diminishing the security on which the |
company ,,, ootelaod =, credit To- changn |
w AaDlsy ~ tuu stocKAo1uct4. Ii
Iho cseo "pto TUG leFeFse, 9nd the liability
Naa lncrcaaso W me nis o. ls72, tls STOCKHOLM
eta Nonlt1 naso oeen quick TO urge that their
1.En's anu puIasns "eio n3ed by the act OF 1851.
lAe defcudants liability must tlaretero be hetd
~ ~ nasihG beon h1ea W tao law Of 1907. and q
!unH"snt TX ~oIla pc tehaefod against him for
Foou, LEG aMouut clal'ned ny tho pia1utlH, |
rthEnhAHn CIGARS
~ toe eHse 81 AhSa4 q A. Vs. llene y liaas,
,noSo nsoaeetl gavo oee.eion On Tue effect OF
'no taso aet OF congress Oh the Inv Is to copy
nrigna n1g anu uaasmatks. Tho complainant |
i.ea tle ulIi 70 restrain tho defendants
rom ,f Infringing pig alleged copyright and !
lllegod tEaf 10 lseo 20 devised braad OF cut |
.a L. !aoei iot pfand o. cigars they we're eu-
5ase9 ~ Manaaactu1angs known ~ tue fI1o.
0fand that the5 forwarded under thu act Of
congress- the design 70 tbs Librarian Of C1nglce
6hlch was registered ns q copyright. Tho bill
Sas aemaflea TO On tho ground that that was
'os a sdo]ec1-mattos toE cop5i'ght md did NOT
:one Ttolo tno fsoteetfoh or the Copyright
IL ~ euho *Aoasun sa"t: - toe cAho atohc
.an .nnot ~ Eioro.t !aw tnc ooJectlon would pe
:, ,Gn taA1n. nut II "ae ~ ~ Hospencu py tho