Vicksburg weekly herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1868-1883, 1878-03-15

Orleans who could or would help him
Bat after the liability had been In.
Cured, and the money turned over 4
Meyer & Kahn, the PLAINTIFF appliet
to them for indemnity. Finally Gala
CHER, In February, executed TO them
mortgage on bis ~stOre-house and lOI
and stock Of goods In Vicksburg.
The arst special pies sets np the
mortgage IS executed by Gallagher
aud accepted BY the plaintiffs In dis
charge aud satisfaction Of the liability
Of Meyer & Kahn, issue was taken on
that plea and the jury had found It for
the plaintiff. There was evidence
tending 10 prLve that II was cumula.
tive, and not In satisfaction of previ.
Gus liability, aud that Il was procured
to have been given by Meyer 8 Kahn.
There was also an Issue on the second
special plea, that the composition with
the assignee though authorized by a
Bankrupt Court, was not carried out
and completed, and that issue was
found for The plaintiff.
The plaintiff In error has urgently
pursued the argument that Maurice
Meyer, the defendant, because the
plaintiffs did not realize ell that they
might from GAllagher'S mortgage, was
released.
II Meyer & Kahn had paid what the
plaintiffs had expected by reason oil
their obligation assumed for their &C.
commodatiOn, they would have had
the right to be s~ubrogated to ell the se-
curities which BlakumOre Brothers 8
Co. had obtained from Gallagher.
Independent Of the contract Of de.
PENDANTS 10 indemnify, the fact Of the
execution of The bond by the plaintiffs
as surelies for Gallagher, created the
relation OF principal aud surety be.
tween the parties, and imposed on Gal.
lsgher the liability aud duty TO rave
Blakemore Brothers h Co. harmless.
The Transaction placed the parties In
these responsibilities to each other.
Meyer 3 Kahn bad become bound 10
Blakemore Brothers q Co., 10 indem.
nifty them Gallagher was also liable to
them as principal debtor on the bond,
and 10 relieve his sureties as far
as possible, aud 90 the means also of
indemnity TO Meyer q Kahp, who had
become sponsor for him, he had exeCu.
ted the mortgage, so far as 1t could be
made productive . would dis.
charge the obligation OF Gallagher TO
BlakemoIe Brothers & Co., incurred by
signerS OF The bond as HE surety, aud
would also discharge Meyer & Kahn
from their liabilities.
II was incumbent on the mortgages
TO administer the security for The best
interest OF all concerned. They as.
sumed toward Meyer & Kahn the place
OF trustees iu respect Of the security.
The mortgage was . collateral and
cumulative security, which they had
obtained from The common debtor OF
both, aud they were subject to the du-
ties Of fidelity aud fair dealing 60 that
II Meyer & Kahn paid the plaintiff,
they might be ~SubrogAted to the bene.
Ils Of the security.
The mortgages could not release OF
acquit the mortgage without serious In.
jury to Meyer & Kahn. II they vOlun-
tarily surrendered or abandoned to any
other any part Of the mOrtgaged prop
erly pro tGRtO, they diminished the
value OF tho security to the defendant,
and Il would be equitable and just 10
credit the party who would be subro-
gated to tho security TO that extent.
Plaintiff Appeal, 8 Watts & Sargent,
So; Holt VI. Badly, Is Penn. st., DOT.
Blakemore Brothers & 20. abandoned
10 O'Riley, assignee OF Gallagher, the
bAnkrup', tho proceeds OF The goods
embraced In the mortgage, aud which
might have been realized If they had
pursued their clOi,n. They we're bound
10 use good faith in dealing with these
securities, and II by non-claim and
negligence they have lost part Of the
fund shown by the teslimony 10 have
been worth from $780, TO $450, 10 that
extent they have lost recourse against
the defendant.
The right Of the mortgages TO the
goods or their proceeds Is just as clear
As their right to the real estate. They
supposed the assignee to retain their
proceeds when It was In their power 10
have forced AL application Of them 10
their debt, They permitted the wrong
lul conversion by the assignee to con.
tinue so long when they alone could
make demand or sue, that their righttO
reclaim he proceeds was barred by the
bankrupt law against them, aud all
right to them 10 also cut Of. The loss
Is .chsrgeable solely 10 the plaintiff,
and the defendant should not suffer by
1t.
But il is urged by the counsel for the
plaintiff In error that the plaintiff
have lost remedy against the defend
ant because they failed 10 make proc
Of this d,bt against the bankrupt
Gallagher, and secure q right to share
In the distribution Of the estate. Il il
true that Blakemore Brothers & Co IL
order 10 preserve their right agains
the defendant, were obliged TO TAXI
any steps 10 collect from Gallagher o.
from his assignee.
The plaintiff might well stand on tbt
original promise aud understanding o
Meyer 8 Kahn, and look to that L
make them whole. They have no jus
ground to complain when they hav,
-zI.ao,glw aas,.,J Tho nnEifian n