The New York herald., 1878-12-17
A. t. Stewart & Co. Versus
Meyer Sonneborn.
A LONG PROTRACTED SUIT.
Effort to Reverse q Verdict
for Damages.
[BY TELEGRApH TO THE HERALD.

| UP to-day in the Supreme Court 1t was not how
| over. reached until near the adjournment mud Sem
ator Conkling had time to read only his brief of the
points Of the He will not deliver his argument
until tomorrow.
| FACTS OF THE CASE
The following the facts in the I'm octo
ber 1874, Meyer Sonncborn, q merchant of Alabama
brought suit against A. r. Stewart Co.. in the Cir
cult Court Of Barbour county Ala, for alleged
| malicious prosecution in certain bankruptcy pro-
ccedings that A. T. Stewart had instituted against
him. On the 27th of May. 1878. verdict was rem
dered in favor Of sonneborn for soioOo with costs
TO this Judgment tho defendants NOW plain
tfs prosecute their writ of in the United States
Supreme Court Mr.. Conkling gave first history
| of the case showing how on October 1. 1862
A. I. Stewart 4 Co. had brought suit against Meyer
Sonneborn, a member OF the late firm of L. Lcip-
seiger Co., OF New York. for the of S2,3sl 80
| for goods purchased of the plaintiffs in the
| spring of 1857 Sonncborn defended the suit
| upon the ground that he not a mem
! Der of the firm Of Il. Lcipseiger Co. at
the time the goods were purchased. The evidence
showed that he had been a member of the firm, ut
least from July. 1885, April. 1886. when he claimed
| to have dissolved his connection with it. The
| firm carried on their business In the city Of
| New York. They established credit with Stewart
| Co. in August. 1855. and purchased goods from
| them every month from that time down to the 18th
of Ma-ch. 1867. These purchases were all made in
tho firm name Of T. Lepseiger Co. and on time. The
dominant question trial of that case whether
any notice of the dissolution Of the firm had been
given to Stewart Co. The depostions of Mr.. Libbey,
of the firm of A. I. Stewart 4 Co.. and number Of
| employees Of that firm showed that no such notice
| had ever been received. The testimony of Some
born himself shows that no notice of the dissolution
,ofE & m, |, Iiob
in the newspapers and the only notice he claimed
have given A. 4. Stewart h co. given to an un-
| known clerk on the lower floor of the Wholesale
house OF A. T. Stewart 4 Co.
| After he retired in 1866 l.. Leipseiger and William
| H. Kohn continued the business at the same place
] and under the same firm name. Sonncborn further
testified that in August. 1865 he purchased in his
own name, $4,000 worth Of goods and had them
shipped to Mansfield Ohio. On the trial of the case
verdict rendered for defendant. motion for
trial was overruled An appeal was taken
| Court reversed the Judgment below aud rcmanded
the for new trial On the 9th of May, 1873.
when the cause was again called for trial in the Cir
/ cult Court of Barbour county, Sonneborn filed y
special afidavit for continuance of the and
moved the Court to continue, which motion was
| granted
i At the time this affidavit made and contn-
/ uance obtained suit against Meyer sonneborn had
been instituted in the City Court Of Eutaua, in the
county Of barbour. in Alabama by his brother.
Jonas born q the city Of cf He% York and
the the sum Of ssa44 4s. That suit was
eGn'''' city Of y New York in :s favor of " jonas mas
Sonneborn VS.. Meyer Sonneborn. on May 1, 1873.
| The New York judgment obtained on CONNER
cial paper. for which Meyer sonneborn principal
and the payment of which had been suspended since
January, 1865 Execution was issued from the city
Meyer Somehow for SG,944 - June 80 1873. and
went INTO the hands Of the Sheriff Of Barbour county
| on July 3, 1873.
i PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY.
On August l. 1873, Meyer sonneborn posted printed
and goods we're located at that time announcing that
he Offering for sale his entire stock Of goods.
Alter the Judgment in the City Court OF Eufaula in
favor of his brother had been allowed to go by de-
s sf ns sassnS OF
bills had been Published. Eli L. Shorter, the attorney
OF A. r. Stewart & CO.. advised them Of thesespro-
ceedings and gave the opinion that Meyer Sonneborn
had thereby made himself liable to be put into i'm
While the suit Of A. T. Stewart Co. w. sonnoborn
| was still pending in rho Circuit Court of Barbour
county, petition TO have Sonneborn declared in
voluntary bankrupt filed in the District Court Of
the United States ut Montgomery Ala. the 18th Of
August 1873. An order to show cause why the Pc
tion should not be granted issued by the Regis
| ter August Is, 1873, and made returnable the
& &slst day , of said month; petition for in
filed in the Bankrupt Court August 15. 1873.
| based on special affidavit that Sonncborn about
|
lieyd that he about to remove his goods and chat
tells from said district or maAc such disposition of
| the rs would prevent them from coming into
| the hands of assignee to he appointed by tho
court. The Register granted the petition and pro-
yisora warrant Of seizure. Inc Marshal. under d.
rection Of warrant took possession OF the merchsn-
disc aud books of Sonueborn on August l1 1878. aud
| made his return 10 the Bankrupt Court.
On August IL 1873, sonncborn appeared in the Dis
tric Court, to the order 10 ''sliow cause
and filed his plea in writing denying any indebtedness
1 A. II. u
had committed any act Of bankruptcy, and demand
ing ra BY S jury ,S ts IN ~ s s @
defendant An appeal taxcn 70 the Supreme
Court Of Alabama and the judgment below was
affirmed.
On september s. 1874 Judge Buseed. OF the District
Court of the United States sitting in bankruptcy at
Tho suit Of stewart & Co. VS.. sonncborn in Barbour
County Circuit Court, dismissed the petition of Stow
art GO; to have sonnsborn declared an nyoiun'ary
been seized and held by the Marshal was then restored
| to him.
THE suIT ron DAMAGES
Meyer Sonneborn then commenced his suit in
action on tho case against a. 4. Stewart x Co. for
damages. The grsvanicu OF tho complaint was that
the detcndants a. 4. Stewart n Col, without hav-
ing any debt or demand against complainant or any
reasonable probable cause therefor, wrongfuliy.
siyely' caused the said bankruptcy proceedings
to be instituted against hun aud his prop
| crty attached, whereby he was greatly daiu-
aged in tho value Of his goods and his
| credit IA merchant and that ho was otherwise
greatly injured ana Sustained damages IN the
| amount o. necessary ant reasonable lawyers fees,
paid and contracted TO be paid BY him to his attorney
employed in aud about his expenses la said wrongful
proceedings and in bringing this action to the
damages hs has sustained hereinafter set forth,
and which defendants refuse and fail to pay pantifi,
the said fees being reasonably worth $4,000 other
| large sum-"
TEE Defendants xx.grrioxs
On the triad Of the in the United States Court
nj Montgomery Ala, the defendants, A. Il. Stewart
Co., by their counsel. took exceptions 10 number Of
portions OF the direct charge to the jury, and upon
those exceptions IL based the appeal taken to ,he SUI
preine Court At the time the defendants ais o
asked the Court to give the following charges, which
the Court refused to do. Exceptions also taken
TO The refusals. and now assigned as grounds for
| crror.--
F0stH the jury bcevs from al the evidence that A. 4.
Stewart 90 acted the advice of counsel In prosecut
ing ther claim Sonneborn In the Circuit Court ot
Harbour county, and such advice had honest be-
lief IN the validity of their debt their right
in said action IN the institution Of the bankruptcy
proceedings acted likewise tho advice OF counsel
and under honest belief that thcy taking using
only sucb al