, 1876-07-22
THE COURTS.
A Batch Of Decisions In t!,e Fed.
eral Courts.
Priority Of q Mechanics Lien.-.When q
Bankruptcy Claim Ia Occurred.
Building Inspector Bailey Throus Up
the Spougc...1lis Assets and
Liabilities
Application for q Mandamus to seours
avote On the 1875 Charter.
DEClSIONY,

oUI4o1oANGs
PRIORITY or 4 MECHANICS LIxN.
In tho case of Henry Bar,!ng ct al. Is. A. II.
Miller, to foToclosa mortgage for $4,000 Oh
Ais,ar's tua1llng, on Wabash avenue near Madh
non street, In which decision was rendered
Seatcr1aY morning by judge Blodgctt, several
Interesting questions were rafzed II seems
that Miller fitted up the building Tor icwc9ry
stntc, md put in expcnaiva showcases nnd mir
tors. These ahovcascs wcro placed along tho
sides Of the store, aud, where they rested,
tue marblo had been taken up so
that they stood on t1e flooring
underneath the marble. Shortly aftor tho com.
1ncncc1nent nf tho foreclosure proceedings
Miller niade Arrangements 70 remove tho show.
rascst anil = supplemental bill was filed, and
Temporary tu}uuetions granted 10 restrain him
were A1tuses, and belonged 10 tho building.
About the time the foreclosure proceedings wcfc
begun two or three PERSONS also died petitions
fof mechanics Nens agalnst the SANG building,
mau, NM Who sia,inel Iaiaaese II 81, ,iao duo under
front q The tuil;1iag, tic Other b. By an an
9tnss psty To- ~ whotn a,ao aa-nfs fow hundred
Among The questions 70 bo considered were tho
respective prtorttlcs Of tho mortgage and me-
chantc's liens, and as to whether the ahow easca
were fixtures,
to be considsreti as part of tho building. Tho
question MES somewhat perplcxing, and II was
difficult to tell whcro tho lino Of tlenmrcatton
should 10 drawn rs between Inortgagor and
mortgagte, lscr aud executor. and rentor or pur-
chastr. The tnteutlon eeemed to DO that ticy
shoNll he considered pnft OF the premises. Tho
old tNfc, that nothing was to br taken away
Which neccssitatcd the drawing of nafi, WIS i
good rnle.
Nikhrd t., tina nfNntfNt or S12f1} All
hut 81 AGO OF which had been paid, mud bo
claiMed lien for that balance. Il was urgca
that this elnfm and the other f0s the zinc cor
nice could not hc allowed to prejudice the mort
hlft subsequent contract between mortgaYor
and contractor to defeat ard practically nnnu1,
pro tanto, tho contract with tic mortgage.
sSs foF rsnS oG
Of a building, hsss been in foree since 1915. The
prior ineumhrancc WIS entitled to a ifcn 10
Tho valuc Of tho iand q The time the
contract wns made. 30 that statute
ffen~hoder to the extent OF the vaiuc Of the lnnd
et The time the contract was made for the cree-
ton Of the building, Tho Supreme Court of
this State had construed the law, md held that
cumhranccr and mechanic, the rule ot dtvleton
cf the procceds wak that the pr1pcrtY should he
sold, tic valuo Of tho real estate aud tl1o value
Of the improvements having been asccTtaiuei,
&1U A1tGl LILO BALI u LltG EI0ftlkit u(SlIluk tuE
proceeds IN the nsuportiou wllich tho valls Of
lilo Improvements lore to the value Of the real
estate. Thatvas tho rule whcto Tho mechanic
waa substantially unpaid. But the present case
present instance bad not contracted for the
srcctiou Of ths entire building, but only for
portion. Both Of them Ind alsb been paid i
large proportion o. thc!r contraet price. from
the funds ttsnshsd y Sy TO IN mmorieagse. It l,aa
10 sha1n III thu Psoeeeds Of tho property fl tho
proportion which the value OF tho work whtci.
they perforsno1-use amount Of ttctr contruet
priet-bore TO tho value of the real estate or
hut that was not Just division. Tho
e0E eas stons sS Work s'S to "'a ta, M exen es
he Ind = lea: After the sale the proceeds
ua amount duo to tSe NJ sors. 10 S tts vaius @
Of tho retnafnlcF Of the property, Tho r1fe that
Dcakman had inslstca On was that II the land
xas worth S90, 900 and his contract was Sl1,0oo,
ths p.efses shoui4 ~, BE- diytdSd % II ths
budding owed him $l9, 900, hit It only owed
him 81, 100, aud he had no lien on the rcst Of
the building for this $i,4oo; Ie had only
Work hc 10 perfrn
Mechanics Lien iaM having been settled
eougs = annff% 'so,, nuss e sfsfass's fs!awss
by the Federal Courts. A mortgagee utter tho
take h!s mortgage subject to the right oi tho
mortgagor, or uny person holding an estato III
the 'aostgsgca prs'nlaea, to contract a lien
under tho lnws o{ tho State.
The Mechanics Lien law would infringe the
provision ot the Consultation OF the Jnltctl
States which prevents States from pass
ing any law which would impair tho iobll-
s,rucA that every pcrson who took a mort
gage took undtr the conditions OF the
INV existing 1t that time. a reference would
therefore be made u the MAstef to Inquire into
decree would than bo eutcrel Ia acroniance
with tho opinion.
The rase Of Iecyes vu. tho cstatc Of Samuel
o. Walker involved tho SUING questions, aiil
was saa decided ssnIy ss sas way sy ,,c .o$s
Au tmportunt opinion was 1lso given yester-
what Is 70 ee Ganssdersu secured cIain,
s1nsG asss' T. tho w naokgsp' y s I Ihe sss'on
4: Stanley, IN which some of the creditors Ind
Aled objeytto,.s to claim Of llat.tlay, Trout d
sSes Co. feF seoSt tn. o n oq4 at T. Tss
With thc.s eredttura in fs13, found that they
must have some uloru capltal 10 ohtain credit,
nad induced Stanley, wao represented himself
s9 be ,s. man 4 sss to e. into paftnershp
q. wife haA sune iaud. sutton lieu
he succeeded in buying $d,C0 worth
pf goods, for which tho paper Of the firm was
given, secured by mortgago of Mrs. Btanley'B
real estate. Tic firm subsequently went intn
tAukruptcy, and Halliday, Frout Il Co. proved
pp thcIF elallu In tho usual way, to which the,
pther creditors objected on the ground TINT tic
kh4sdelphtA dr.a should either frat surrender
their security or exhaust It before proving up
Soz my anount agntnst tho bankrupt estaip
Judge Modgett, however, held that It wa.
meaning OF The Bankrupt law. Tho rule
WIS that creditor cuu1d not
prove up = secured claim unless br surrcnicrel
hls security on the property OF the debtor, and
tAsn went In and proved tp ills debt, mud took
tie chances fur = ACiytdend, or eIse he Eaust cx-
hsnst hlA security and then prove up the Iul
lnre- II Tbs va1uo Of the Becurity, however,
xaa settled and agreed on between Ito Assignee
md creditor, then the latter could prove up Tor
lhe difference between 1t anil his clal,n. hut
shs rule olly applied whefo the security was
psst Of the bank krupt's estate, and otherwise ths
IedstoE could provo up tho whole claitn.
When creditor held tho security Ut a third pur.
Ion, such u NIL indorsesl note, etc, he WINS not
ahllged 10 give up his security brtoro proying
As clal1ua Is It did not 20 into the 1aukrapt's