Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1879-05-28
HACKETT VS.. LOEwENSTINE.
An Important ChaBcery Case Decided
by Chancellor LivInEstOne-An Old
story of Crime Revived in q suit
for Damages-COmplRi EanG's
Bill Dismissed.

Chancellor Livingstone yesterday an
nounced his rulings in the case of g. b.
Hackett Us. D. G. & Il. M. Loewenstine, in a
lengthy written opinion. The questions OF
facts presented by the record and the issues
presented being of considerable importance
and interest, we present a brief summary
of the case as shown by the pleadings, to-
wit: That the defendants for several years
prior to 1872 had been and were then en-
gagged in the wholesale and retail dry goods
business In the city of Memphis; that the
complainant was IN their employ, hrst as
salesman and subsequently as superintendent;
that about the time spoken about the de-
PENDANTS discovered that they were the VIC
Tins of oft-repeated and heavy larcenIes of
goods from their store; suspicion became at
tached to and was fixed upon the complain
ant, who was arrested, and, upon the charge
being pressed, confessed, and upon the night
of his arrest surrendered and delivered up
certain bonds, some money, releasing some
salary due him, and gave his note for bal
ance to cover amounts claimed by him to have
been taken from defendants; subsequently,
and few days after Hackett's arrest, de-
PENDANTS instituted a suit In New York, at
taching some eighteen thousand dollars and
other property, they claiming the discovery
of further larcenIes. Upon this, and while
in Jail awaiting trial, the complainant, be-
cause OF his ill health and close confinement,
and DESTROYS to escape and mitigate
his punishment, confessed that such bonds,
as attached and secured IN New York, were
the fruits of his larcenles, and offered to
make restitution by a surrender of the
bonds, upon the release of Delaware legacy
also attached, and upon a further proviso
that the defendants would use their best en-
deavors to secure his pardon. This contract
was entered into. The complainant was con-
victed upon a plea of guilty upon twelve in
dictments, and sentenced to the penItentiary
for twelve years, and was subsequently par
doned. Complainant brought his suit IN this
court, claiming that the contract alluded TO
was made under duress, oppression. fraud
and imposition, asking that tine same be an
rites returned. The court held that the con-
tract was fully executed by the parties before
the bill was fled, and that it will not be dis
turbed. The proof develops no facts to GUS
tain the charge of duress, or that the con-
tract was brought out by du-
ress. The complainant had able,
faithful and fearless counsel and
knew the extent and purport of the
contract and the extent OF his liability. In
summing up the chancellor held that the
charges of fraud, duress, oppression, ETC., are
not sustained by the facts IN the case, and
complainant is not entitled to relief on that
account. That the illegal and immoral ele-
ments did not enter into the contract of July
2, 1872, as charged in the bill, and that
complainant is not entitled to relief on that
ground. That the contract being an exc
cuted one, and the parties in pari delict0,
| complainant would be entitled to no relief
against the contract had that been corrupted
by the vicious stipulations charged. The
| chancellor dismissed the bill of complainant.