, 1876-10-26
THE LAW COURTS.
Supreme Court Decision in tho
ButIer.Waiker Case.
Of Great Interest to Stockholders in
Deftlnot Insurance Companies.
The Higher Tribunal Also Decides that
tho Old Custom. House Cannot
DC Taxed.


| nuTLER vs. WALREN.
The Supreme Court has refused 10 allow u
| rchearing In tho case OF Butler vs.. Walker,
but does not enter into the merits Of tho case.
Tho following Is tho opinion, which Is per
curium:
Pr Curtain: VIC have considered tbs petition
anldavits in support thoreof. We are Informed ~
hn,o,i1t pending In tho courts depending on tho
sumo questions ~ arc found In tho above entitled
We arc Of opinion that there ia no tmpcd'mcntt
10 the trial Of hosc causee. my ut more Of
them b5 t'e Cos's u which !hsy ars rsn1ing t1e
tho nsual manner for revision, when thc grounds
Of The decision In tho above eapae can 10 ro.ex.
cause i not accordng to liz psactcc q tho Court.
md We must deny tho taHe: The. order staying
the proceedings IL vacated anu set aside
The suit was brought by Francis Butler agninst
q. T. Walker, d stakeholder III tho Equitable In
suranco Company. PlatnttG claimed TO tave
Sustained loss on policy in the Company,
and sued Walker under provision Of tho
General Insurance laws adopted March, 1860
which enacted that stockholders Of on insurance
company should be liable for tho full amount Of
their stock until tho whole amount Of the capt.
tai stock should be paid In md d certificate
thereof recorded. Few companies take tho
trouble to tarc sllelt certificate recorded, even
though the stock wns paid tip.
No dcfcnsc OF any importance WIS intcrposcd
and Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff
An appeal was then taken, but last February
the Judgment was affirmed. Soon after pctt-
tiou for rctcarng was lled, whicl, l,ns Just bcen
denied. With this petition were filed atll,layIts
tendng to prove that the Judgment wiis oh.
taincil by cotluston, md yesterday q reporter Of
rms In "cahoots," us 1t was termed, With tic
plutntit1. Certain It is TINT the decision was
rendered With little discussion or opposition,
barefaccd fraud ly NIL who have hcard of 1t.
Since tho case wus decided by tho SuprctIte
Court, very large number Of suits-oser 9@O-
sopass ae pra a.s aesdsneyn, Sislt
ay,s Ser up res of porss
a. m Nominal .nnt. TGo opinion of tic
Supreme Court just given does not entirely
o. eat of nl Ihopo ta;dtn tt it tnny my not o, 1e
% 10 tIe record Il not thc prooeF Wsy to havo thS
questions ' reArsucd. and hasing @ nny Sntortanuts
,1,n.a nn-r,fu1 ,ierxfnm shnr1I " hnrrt"r Ia"
GnMst iii aiI fh.t iIa I. thn a,r II ,vIii hn,.,
% one good 5 aiect @ IN casi,.g n resposaiblo mcn to
tsiidrot insMrnmcn cnTnore,IHns '~"N '"~'s ~
"''$'s'' A"sr'xp T.x1sn m Tttr GI;srnv.rousr.
~ - a,, ah - H. sitr ~ 1;,.,oo N,
~! ~ Moura. uns ncarhorn .tr"cts " tnno Az
tMn " n,I rms.om. III i;rmsr Itincr cn,,, r"t 10 ho
nsscssra for benoita for opentnr DoariSrn atfccts
The ro not o. son aIia ~ ~ Inc s fo 70.
hcnci hn s, tn law ta1cs ~ a. Imn"se ~.
saa.nnnt. fnr onoHtu cop,I on;v r. n7".1ss ~
r. seyssssd and Il @ sSt M s,' t's seSs.ains poysT
nn,1tctnn ~ ~ stotrtn s,nvc Il yss nr1v IT,
t"n,1cd r. "nr,v ~ ]nvi5,a1s and mi IN tf,o Xii,
,6n.t f. t 70 to 20
fark