, 1877-12-29
TIE COURTS.
Decision by Judge B!odgett in
the HamIin, Hale &
Co. Case.
Record OF Judgments, New Suits. Pro-
oeedinEs in Bankruptcy, Etc.

ngsInst parties when IL aptrars u, have been
brought for sotnc PURPOSES furcign IL the pur-
pose of the bankrupt law. The Stntc courts
lave frequently attempted to cnjnin aucf, pro-
ccctlinGs In bankruptcy for frn,tlnlcnt ptlr-
tx,scs, hut the bankruptcy ct,nrts have llct,frt
such tuwcr. md Justly, II nnty the bankruptcy
n.,,r,. MI, ~ +, t,o ;ns.,or
~ ~. ~ .... nv ,r
IN the ltn as Apfit last ffeheftcK y. Han'l'n
fi'ctl petition tn bankruptcy asking to be nj"
tulicateti bankrupt, arul also asking TINT tic
firm M Hon,1,n tfrlc (. Co nf ylif1 hn was ,
.,,'..,,'. .,...,,,., ,i,s,",.,t rh. t,,.,t,Io
''e'.oe'' en""u W "''"'1'."s1" A"o p..u'""
was In the usual form, anil rllc was huhsc-
qucntly entered on lia!c to show cause why he
aud the firm should not bc declared bankrupt.
Ii,,c f,@c,, cnio, that ttc ft,m wos insnlyr,,,
', ..,.s.a., .,..s,...: ,.." .,'a .,I. ,i,..,,..t
A"'. e"se'eu ''''.n'"t ~. t",s u'ee'''ee"
ahd ttle pctltlon ulsnssea rs 10 ha'sl a'i'' TUG
firm. lie charged that fiamlfh had lnAtltusc'l
urorcetl,nra stu,nlv To ant,oy mid ycx him. and
r. rro,Ifv III. rccliug. or rrycnrc.
~ ~ 49,. NO. ., .,." " .,,.'.1 49,, 1,,,u
ina 'as1s oi ~. 'ase' ~ ,'a.eu uS '"o 'unsc'
arc In hrIct ms fs,llows: Prior 10 the great fire,
r. n. tiamltn anil Il. ", lIale were wholesale
anil retail drv.con,s dealer, hcr.. ,,ndcr Inn
frm nan,o n t1,mln Hale 4 r. In Navr,n.
t'cr, 1871, they wcro Obliged to c"mpronise at
80 cents ON tho dollar, which wus effected. In
January, 1872, a new firm was formed uulcr Tic
,lI ,,a,nr. tuo new nnr, mrs coming in, and n
continued u'!tu is'a' whcn iia',iln 'naue STU
another partnership under The ilafne ot lialnllh
g. Dnvy. All Of the composition notes VI tho
oId firm Ind been ,,a!d long bcforc. The only
usss.s " ..o "m henS a,e',,,n,. ~ n' ,s.. ~.
petition wefo some nanK nec9unta anu insurance
tias; at''i az u'''ifte.nstl anuht asast j.;
4 cfni!l,' q Co. lia,1li, admitted i , or nsserte M
TINT tic Hfm oWcd C!an1n ~ GO. Ss'u,uJ' a!ht
ail oLisr srenM4rs f.1ani ,s. S 81, w W. l's Mo
uhacTvhnea Ilanln s1n e.a1M 9ao ssno a1u fcbfe
fctca tlle asaets ~ ssnMn 'esst!,ats thef wssr
NO rs ~ kase I' a,!,t u, aa,. !My T. W G'n
ilIe other ctsdst9ss. IN lho sprihs M ls.t lam.
!tn aasiQnc ~ ,is lntercst y tlie ola iifin nt
linmll, ING - ~ .1. y .ia,s. sno11ly pillr 70
tue ilinE q .ae ett,oh, MgyeI' ,I o vatoas
which tic GO lwr csnt eomr%s!tton y M tad beet. hccn
la1u, anti assi9heu tnena u "s !ather' s'tce
the tetili,n was i1lcm 'arEe .ns.". 9. tie
eiicet tllat tney "cte st''' "H''"s " "oloe ny
| tho conposttin'l
After htatieG tnesc 1aetf, the 'NtiEe eaiA t1le
sSai SohtTosefsY |e % w. 1ScT .ne aesea a c'nn Il r.
Il. Clanln q ~, lnclo were 70 cAN!ine tlaliss
against the on urn unless Tue eFcditore VINO
accepted Tue eon1psulnisc Wcse secKmE to ~
sct nelue ~ tne Sfeulto'si anu hohe " encn mn,
attempted TO d9 90. dnoss uebts were all
settled, n!iu legally Tue URN ~ roy owe any-
thing, enA It was extremely ao1ntlal whether
the act Of llalnlin could revive them q
| aEalhst has hIH,, anu GNo niM Fi9ht
| u acsuahu tEat tle nfsn o9 aeslaicM nanR-
Enpt oy reason oi h's t aWakgns1 conscience tt.e.
| as to the trauu perpctralcu 1y hltl'.
llamlin could not l'e hearu 10 court OF lusttec
70 assct to h!s own tn}pltun1e rs . tcasoh WY
the Court should take !1flsa!ctlon o. the matter,
anu treat the ilrfta hs stlll ewing ueMs Anotilef
pertinent circumstance w. tIaI l IT, cseatof u
since tue ttlInG oi tn petition any diecovery nl
the alleged fraud, mad joined IN thc request to
ad1tlalsnte tno urn oanHlnpt.
But even though tic ob)cctlon tbat tno cfcs-
| !tote Wcfa not pnsn'ax tHa casc We1g !Ani sum
clent. II WIS auaAuai't'J hno"h tLat stalhim WIS
carrying IN ING h,t!t 70 hatasd and annoy nls
iate partner: bc!olc ~ nlcn tno pettton hn
proenfed' WIhout cona,uefAt.o", hsslehMenls o. .
thc claims asaA's. tne % urn, On str pectensG o.
netting Tor hs ocnsilt. lhat ashEn'
meut must enufe TO tMo betelit o. tie
trni. lnose claitns eontu not ~ ptoveu " ~
oanklaptcY py la!n, ioF nc eeu,a not swear lnat
lo lad not purcIasGal ticfn lor the putpokg ,I o.
influencing procecd'hRs IN 9ahkrupley. inG
prool was conclusive tl'at a pittef !euN eHastcu
bet"een Aan!lh anu lia!c. a'ai tla' VIII INC
was rot tlls ta nood fatth Tor tf,o benefit 81 I'e
creditors, nat " EsstIy prSoto spAc. nhen a,, 2
Court was satisfied That rs proeGss was aotascu =
and used for sinister AMI sexatious narposes IT.
the admitted f4cts, then, the prceet!iaks aralnst
the firm shul1 ~ dismissed, 19r IL could not be
said that tho tlrtn owed ushts @ e., e. pscsc,nt
iar admitting ths ltaii'ls on ttle eFeaMnrs, ohiY
they could take advantage OF t1c!n: liieY, too.
could only sct asile preferential assignment
Within four or sax inontl'a Mterwards' nt'i u.
tho present instance live and halt years ''atl
ctapael. The settlement waa only vaiIablc by
tho cirauslcd credttora within az months aIter
It llal been made, - t1at no advaltaSe M would
arcrre NOW 70 tiayO the ttr!, declared bankrupt.
Judge Bfolgctt then directed M ar'lcr to ta'
sntercs RESTING sat sl,e pct,titioa a - to IT, ths
tl1tn 81 taE'lst, l'ato q o.: ai'u gs 10
not filed III good fnttl! Tor tlIn hcnelit af tlu
rrcdttors OF the Firm, but fur l!a'nin'a pfiyntu
pnrtmscs, not within tilc lnscnt q q tlle ba'k.
rHpicy law, atd tllat should bc dismissed as tu
the lEln atsl as tn Hale. ......-.- .
THE CHICAGO RAILROAD CONSTITUTION CON
| .-.... fANy. -.....
Judge Moore was occupied neaFly nll Any res
terlay la hearing scvrFal notlons II. the cs.sr q
frtsblc II lsaprelYe and othcrs against the Chl
caYo lsal'road Construction Company one va
motinl1 ~ set asl!o Tue ealo .! tlle lonlnan,yt
usAet8, matte In lb1U aNn hare tlletn rcs0tl tt
ticorve i. Cooner; another was nation by tn
. Dn1ts ft+asSt ~