The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-08-01
R0BESOS's FINAHcIAL AGENTS.
Tho Govcrnmcnts suit Against jay Cooke
4 CO., Dankrupts.

WASHINGTON, July 31.-In the case OF
Edwin NJ. Lewis. trustee Of Jay Cooke & Co.,
bankrupts, appellants, VS.. the United States, the
Supreme Court mas decided az follows:
This case turns upon legal prcpositons There Is no
sta Disturbing agents the Navy Dapartment. o.
department Tor the balance OF moneys iccd 10 tacr
hands Tor dsbnrsement the sum Of 9isi 6lo es So On
que TO the departmept WIS cogsit eranly larger than
ths untea sIai.s or naip syep arse smennt Of
col s,Srsls for the security q the dcot' TIE United
eo f 70 as he yh y%eS
A., rnS nrst mentioned with interest. Is sui due and
uq4psic; jay Cooke. yccnlioch Co consisted
o, r4n nuin nT Mcc,, pale,loa And rrsqS %o, II
Eynn; Wn rSsidsns.o q F'Snes,ccs, H. B. cOose
PIT Coo % GeoT 70 C. 6S, aud nay cs2ss SgIss pgryrs,
idents OF the United states. Frs. banking house
in Pniliuelpn under the name o. Jay u. Spsr'.
The Tne memoefs OF the nrm were the seven Amer,o, ID
james A. Garland.
posing se arm Of I coote co we're seT aa" csad
banSrupts aud this ADJUDICATION remains In fu force.
house y coose scuo6 Co. The
~ nRns Hs S' tw
ha. oee1 appointed trustee Of the estates Of the bank
eeiye. and hold. their several .sgss,s iadiydos es
we'll The estates OF the bankrupts are insuicent
70 pay all their moe tedness Tne United states, un;
payment Of their cebt before mentioned out oi the
separate estates Of such members OF the nrm Of jaw
Cooke Co. as werc also members of tne debtor urn
Of jay Cooke McCullOch Co. The trustee denies tho
validity OF this demand Tbs United States have inst
tuted this proceeding to enforce II.
After an exhaustive review OF tho law Of tho
case, the Court says:
The court below committed error In holding that
the preference OF the United state. as creditor OF
Cooke, MctulOch q Co, spilled to the separate
and individual etstes Of the bankrupt partners
thus supersrding the rule In equity recos.
nized by the bankrupt act that partnership
nershp deuts aud nd viduh property In payment Of
the INDIVIDUAL debts II Is sufficient to upon this
subject that the learned anu elaborate argument OF the
appellants counsel In support of tue opposite View
overlook. the true meaning ana effect OF the statutes
The bankrupt parties IN question were INDEBTED to tae
ed tue United States to the preference claimed one
OF the obvious purposes OF hs NTH ton of the act
ofl7y to abr0gae the rule Ia sted nd has
clearly done the provisions of he Bankrup act relied
upon do not as we have shown AFFECT the United states
Inc legal relations VI those parties 20 the United States
IN ts controversy are Jus what they would have been
those parties were individual debtors OF the United
never existed.
Tue separate individual interest Of the several
partners In the partnership property Of Jay Cookc
Co. eau be only the share Of esch OF what be
left after dscharging al the liabilities OF the copart
nership This Will ne nothing the nrm being IN bank.
United States can, therefore. have Interest with
spect 10 the administration OF Its Affairs. Any rights
% the coaterls held oy the United states claimed
by others, must be settled out de Of the
gdng IneV cannot be upon In this
The decree Of tue Circuit Court 10 affirmed.