The New York herald., 1876-12-12
From State to Federal Juris-
diction.
THE RIGHT OF BANKERS LIENS
Severe Arrangement of an Unlov-
ing Wife.
THAT TEAPOT" MEDIUM.
Cashier Taintor's Financial Oper-
atoms.

A caso which cannot fail to bo OF unusual interest.
not only TO members of the bar but also TO bankers
and those having financial relations with banks, was
submitted briefs yesterday to Judge Wallace OF the
United States Circuit Court, for his decision Tho
facts are briefly ollows:- note OF the Brooklyn
and Newtown Railroad Company. Endorsed by Palmer
Co, for 5,00o had been placed by the company
with Hutchinson Ingcrso note brokers, for sale
discount Instead OF selling it they hypothocated Il
with other notes at the National Bank OF the
Republic security for loan OF $50, 0o0
subsequently Hutchinson \ Ingcrso borrowed
OF The bank Sl00 900 upon another lot Of colaterals
The railroad company had various transactions with
Hutchinson Ingersol, resulting IN balance due from
tho railroad company TO the nrm OF $60l This
amount they offered to the firm and demanded back
their note Finding that 1t had been hypothecated
with the bank they rendered tho same amount to 1t
and made similar demand Aiterward the $50, 900
loan paid or and the bank claiming bankers
lien upon the for tho amount due tho $40 900
loan, sued Palmer Co, the ndorsers for tho VIII ole
amount. They offered ,op pay the s0ol. with interest,"
but the offer was refused The suit brought IN the
Supreme Court OF the State, this district, and
referred 10 Hon. Murray Hoffman, formerly a
Judge OF the srperior Court. He decided that the
bank could only the S60l upon the note, and
Judgment for that amount duly entered and paid.
The bank then brought suit against tho railroad CON-
pany upon the same note in the United States Circuit
Court the suppostion that the current OF dccis
ions the federal courts upon bankers liens was
different rom that OF the State courts The company
defended the suit on the ground that the ques
lion had been decided against the bank In The state
court that they had not appealed from that decision,
had accepted the money awarded them by It, and
should not be permitted 10 try their luck second time
by bringing suit III u United States court In the
points submitted on behalf ofthe bank by Mr. Thomas ii.
i.odman, counsel, his chief reliance was based upon
tho theory recovery against party is no bar
q tiuc disconnected
that the principle is that man shall be heard before
he Is condcmnod that cstoppcs must be mutual; that
Judgment against The indorser favor OF plaintiff
wuulu not bind the defendant apd consequently a
Judgment against the plaintiff In favor OF tho indoser
would not bnd the Plaintiff and that partial payment
i, not satisfaction. lie also argued that under tho
oil the United States courts the planns had
good cause OF action Tor tho entire amount OF the
note. In very extended brief, in which he cites
nearly sixty authorities, Mr. Dudley Field combats
the theory thus presented behalf of the bank. He
says the principle invoked on the plaintifs'
behalf is the one but that he (painti)
has been heard and has been condemned. He should
not be pcrms.ed, when an appeal open him in the
State court, TO seek IN this manner 10 get tho benefit
OF appeal In all the cases cited by plaintiff. he
tends the defendants were not restricted III their de-
fence ana not prvies. In this they
prives. The company was the maker. It's president
and financial agent tho ipdorsers neither got any
consideration tho note, ana there liability
part OF either except Tor the supposed equity Of
the plaintiff There is little doubt thai the frst idr.
ment (had 1t been favorable TO tho plaintiffs ana not
colectedl would have been insisted upon this
ton, and that II would have been held conclusive
partial payment by one party Is no defence TO
Tor the balance against another party but here there
no partial payment; IL was payment in full Of
the entire amount that decided TO be duo tho
plaintiffs IRON any and all parties upon the note. II
no fault of the dciandants that there IS pre-
cscly analogous in the books That is due TO the fact
that have double system OF judiciary, and that
has before thought oil appealing to both upon
what is substantially the same case, after judgment
cept by removal uader certain late statutes liz there
Is precedent II IS respectfully submitted that this
the time and the occasion 10 make Mr.. Fold
then argues great length that til substantially
the action that decided in the State Court and
that plaintiffs did not occupy the relation OF bankers
10 Palmer Co, SO as To give them tpaintitsl
bankers lion the noto for general balance
lie concludes his brief by urging that plaintiffs
cannot for tho additional reasons that
hutchinson had no right to pledge the note, fact
notice OF which they are chargcabic; and that
the courts Of United States bound by the
cisons OF the OF the State unless tho question
is arising under tho constitution or laws OF the
United States. The is one which exctcs more
than ordinary interest among members oi the Bar,
bankers and financial men generally, and tho opinon
OF Judge Wallace VIII DC eagerly looked for deciding
yet unsettled question rciaion to bankers hens
well as the right 10 what is regarded unpre-
redentcd mode OF appeal IRON State to federal Jurs-