Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-01-11
Statement of DEPENDENTS At
tOrney Relative to the
Trial and Abatement
Of Judgments by
Judge Trigg.
Agreement of Counsel and Offer Of
PlaiRtitfs-A TrOgan Horse
with Armed Men is
The Gift.
The Sum Of $4,000 Awarded
Action Of the United States
Supreme Court by that
Tribunal.

The LEDHER last Tuesday gave an &C.
count of the Interesting lawsuits against
the Life Association Of America, North
western Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany and Mutual Life Insurance Com
pany, Of New York, in each Of which
judgment to the amount If $4,000, with
interest amounting to from $3.50 to $3.50
in every suit, was awarded in favor Of the
plaintiffs, E. H.. Martin aud e. C. Mar
tin, ct al. AS that part of the judgments
having interest attached was abated, the
United States Supreme Court refused to
hear the cases which we're taken up on
writs Of error from the United States
Circuit Court, and the same we're re.
manded. Hence the judgments in the
lower court will be executed. The i'm.
portance Of these suits is not in the mag.
nitude Of the sun awarded, but the
principle involved and the method of
procedure. In view of the general in.
terest of this litigation q LEDGER repor.
ter yesterday interviewed Mr.. W. G..
Fowlkes, who with his partner, Judge
Archibald Wright, and Messrs. Estes and
Elicit we're attorneys for defendants,
General Murray and Messrs. CAN'T, Lowe
4 Patterson being for plaintiffs. The
following is the
STATEMENT BY Mr. FOwLKEs
relative to the manner in which the pro-
csedings we're conducted aud his opinion
as to the rulings of the lower court:
The acts Of congress limit the right
OF review in the Supreme Court to cases
where the amount Of the judgment ex.
ceeds $4,000. where judgment is against
the defendant. In these the verdict of
the jury was in each case against the de.
PENDANT in excess Of $4,000; it was in the
sun Of $3.50, aud in the others $5640,
according as the amount wac increased
or lessened by the rate Of interest in the
State where the particular insurance com.
pany had his domicile. Had Judgment
been entered on this verdict there could
could have been no question Of our
right OF review in the Supreme
Court. After the verdict was entered
and before judgment, the counsel for DR..
Martin and wife instructed the clerk
to enter judgment for only $4,000, they
Offering TO surrender or release the $646
To this counsel for the companies OBJ
jected upon the ground that the manifest
aud only object Of such release was to
defeat the right Of review in the Su-
preme Court; that the cases had been
wrougfully decided; that there we're nu-
merous and fatal errors in the ruling of
the court and in the charge to the Jury
upon which q reversal could be had in
the Supreme Court, and that it was i'm.
possible for the court to wink so hard as
not to see that the purpose Of the release
was to prevent the right Of appeal. The
court admitted that it the plaintiffs we're
entitled 10 hold the verdicts they had
obtained they we're entitled to the
$640 as clearly and az certainly as
they were to the $4,000; that the
$64O was interest on the policy.
which by positive statute in Tennessee,
carries interest; that the plaintiffs had
demanded interest, had introduced proof
Of the rate Of interest, and had asked the
court to charge the jury that they must
give interest. Counsel for Martin and
wife did not deny that their object was
to defeat the right Of defendants to have
the causes reversed 10 the Supreme
Court. Judge Trigg, however, before
whom the cases we're tried, held tina. the
verdict was theirs, and that il they
wanted to make US a present OF over
5000 in each case he would not prevent
il, although we warned him to beware
Of the Greeks when they come bringing
presents" We we're, however, not alto.
gether opposed to accepting the kind
ofer Of the plaintiffs, provided thew
would make the release after instead Of
before judgment. As q gift they could
have made it as well after judgment az
before. The only difference in giving II
before instead Of after, was that had thew
allowed the judgment to be entered for
S564O, our right Of appeal would be
liked az being in excess Of $4,000. and a
gift afterwards would have been az efFeo.
tuai as a gift, but would have been inef
%fectual TO have defeated appeal. The
court insisted on allowing the gift before
judgment, and Judgment was entered
for only $4,000. We carried the cases
to the Supreme Court, with the hone that
the Supreme Court would undo what
Judge Trigg had done, but we had con.
siderable fear that the Injustice done
the companies was irreparable by reason
olthe positive lsngusgeo Of the act of Con.
gress limiting jurisdiotion of the Supreme
Court TO cases DOLLY where the Judgment
was in excess Of $1,000. The opinion Of
the Supreme Court / have not seen. lint
am satisfied that 10 dismissing the cases
for want Of Jurisdiction, that court did
not look into the facts nor into the mer.
its Of the case, but finding a judgment
} not in excess Of $4,000 held that Il could
not be inquired into 10 the Supreme
Court, it matters not how unjust or how
erroneous the judgment might be. We
hsve no cause Of complaint against the
Supreme Court for following the letter
Of the statute, the injustice Of which we
J justly complain was committed BY Judge
Trigg IN allowing the reduction Of the
amount to be made before instead Of az
D ter Judgment. II was manifest to him
as to every lawyer 10 the courthouse.
e not excepting counsel for Martin and
{ wife, that his course was calculated TO
t defeat review in the Supreme Court;
2 while the method we suggested, Of allow.
ing gifts after instead OF before iudr.
ment, would give the plaintiffs all that
. they could reasonably or fairly ask, and
would not iDjure w.
We have no quarrel With counsel for
j. plaintiffs, because 1t was a neck or
. nothing question for them. A review
! By the Supreme Court presented but one