The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1876-12-21

have menfursb'y imprvFe1 sta - ID
da1Bl oaas = vhiiewssh" TIE iary
rs,urasl verdict 81 dtfeudsat sb.cy
Cer asa Harmon far Pikipila
Ba.e3 sal navsaPar g. defend
N1rmsr Bottom administrator Fret
Na3nN Bsak q Naeh Beaaiug9an
TaIs = sbagsaey es.e-Atshihsh
O8a, ST.. d.ei la Saafsbary, september
Is, 1874 where be had spenta long lie.
September z, 1874 h, sous, rch.baid
Ola, IT, ara james Il Oliu, were APP.
pointed administrators Amorg other
assets which esme Into ne bands af me
admIalstr4tors was a cerillesie 81 deposit
rs ba Baaepkil Nations. Bank u Msu-
chester flr 5000 payable oa demand
w.ta interest ~ lHtee per ceuh sePlsuI-
bel IS, is14, ne administrators drew aut
ths "a ousy due on tbs certificate sud
deposited L il The Fir, National Bank
OF North Bsnaiugiou, takin. ceuifea c
Of deposit 10 tae usaal orm, dtawiug
Eve per cent interest, pay able on demand
to tbs order Of Archibald Din. he
evideuos tended 10 show that Judge
Houghiou, The vice president, aud one Of
The drec tors knew that the deposit was
the money Of the estate and not Of the
Administrators, and that the reason 1t
WAS changed 10 bis bank was that a
large. rate Of interest could be earned
On The day thi deposit was made Arehl-
bald DIN, Jr vas owing the bank s400
I 10 two notes, one % which iel due this
+ day. and Tie other ia few days aiier.
BJta notes were signed By both the
IOiHs. He proposed TO Judge lloughton
I to give new note for 5000, payable Ia
/ three months, take up Gle Old notes, and
take the balance IL monay lio offered
note signed by himself aud Is co.ad-
minislralor, James H. DIN This note
was accepted aud discounted, but upon
what conditions was one Of the questions
/ in dispute Judge Iluughiou testified
/ that the $1,000 note was discounted upon
tue promise Of DIN that the 5000 deposit
should be held by the blnk as security
fJr the loan Din denied any such
agreement. The deposit still remains in
the bank Archibald Din and james II.
DIN became iusovent in January, 1876,
Soon after they resigned their o. flee, aud
the plaintiff was appointed administrator
de bonis non. This certificate was
passed over TO him as All asset of the es
tate. lie called on the bank for the
money, they claimed TO hold the deposit
or so much Of it as was needed to pas
the $1,000 note, which had been five timei
renewed, aud note of $3.50 which IT wal
claimed was discounted upon the sam,
conditions. II was claimed in behalf o
plaintiff that this deposit was trus
fluid which The administrators could no
4 pledge FOR private debt of their own
and that If Houghton knew it, the banI
got no lien on the deposit against tn
estate. The defendant claimed tina
lloughton did not know that the dcposi
was trust money, but even If he did Oil
had given hoods 70 the Probate Court
and be had right to use the money 70
his private purposes, and il lost or vestet
the heirs and others interested ia th
estate must look to the bondsmen. /
! appeared that in this case the bondsmel
were good for nothing. Verdict TO
plaintiff to secure S2l7l83. The cas-
involves important questions, and excite
: considerable interest. j. *. Batchelde
and Chas. N. Davenport for PLAINTIFF
. G. W. Harmon, Il. A. Harmon an
A., Gardner for defendants.