, 1879-06-17

bunkript to withdraw MS tlrst tttitloti lot ult-
tie i a,krupt l.w. The whole question, Of as,
charge was within tic control of the court
Until "thc official lispostliun Of tho eahse.
It aopeArctl TINT after the u, oankrnps
discharge he enlplovcs! At attorney to prepare
proofs 1T eight claims against his estate, nnl
ihe consents Ut such creditors TO hts tsiseharfe.
ilo pad ths H"tsy !s teGs 'Gr f1r taK ng the
anne. lie also bore the cntirc expense coz
nectcd with the proofs of those claims for .hn
sn'c p,,snuse of ohtafuL!g tf1c consent of credit.
crs to bis discharge. The stasl'tea maoe u
Snpt or nny pcssun ou hls baha1f Inns procured
ihe usscnt Of any creditor to tho din.
charge Or Influenced the action ot
any creditor At my stage e ne
or pr'ssssE oissiEou y TX s oe' see S1te %a pres
cnt rasu IL not covered b! that statute. Ter:
tainly the bankrupt could a.k the nssent of
cretltturs 70 ha d'sehage II they vcre III w.
willing to incur The expense OF pFovi!g Their
c1aIms either llccausc they we're worthless, or
for otcr to item satisfactory reasons, TUG hank.
rIrt, IN orsler to obtain The bcnelt Of thetr
for,na! ASSENT to hts asshorge tnigt eea, fns M
right to discharge. III sae! ease Il could not
he fairly said that tlcis assent wns procured ur,
tIscir srtIon tnnucneca by "anS pecun'ary
consideraton or oeIieatiot,:" me s,ata.c ,ah,.c
citnrary Of othrr substantial profit. ur
tcucsit from thc oankrupr or 'rom
action in the ,i,ankruptc,. procecdlngs For
thusc reasons s',c action Ut tho District Court
wunld bg affirmed and the petition Tor review
would bo oYertuat1.
TILE cAxr-IRoS LaAsE cAs..
The caso OF the Connecticut Mutual Lilo In
application for supcrsedeas. This was a cnsc
In which the Company took II lease fronl Sea. It's
tenant, containing power OF attorney
to enter up Judgment. against him in
o'toH % ne to ep pay s a rent. IL
failcd 10 lire u, to his CONTRACT. asi the Cut'l-
pAny, nfter an exhaustive argument In the etsc,
entered no Judgment by confession ngainst him
IN orSr 81 ast s'sSr Az apss vas e
Judge Harlan SAIL tio VIA not quito pruparci to
accetlc to thu proposition that power Ut attor-
ncY to confess n Judgment in tort wKs valid.
question Ut law liz Ind .onc{udei to a,luw the
supcrsc3eAs. 1t WAS vgfs doubtful whether tic
Court Ut present had tho right TO nlluw the
bond approved In the casc to operate Oh super
view OF sl.r pccuIiur circumstances, explaining
somewhat tic delay IN issuing tue writ of orTor,
! ,la hnd ouucludtd IL ALLOW the bond to
act as supersedeas, l. II aong
haso i, corrrctca BY niuttnn Iii the su;,ersts,ea*
| tu recall the si1ncrsedcas. That ronEse had been
adopted because The question Of llw involved iu
| ihc Judgment was BY no Ineans freu from dtfl-
Guilty. .......
rMg WABASH NA1hwAy.
| Judge Harlan also disposed OF the motion to
rcnatitl to the State Courts Two cascs of Tyson
| vs. This Wahasli Railway Company. These
werc foreclosure suits, one, brought
o;s'iy os IL Il ns. s s'elS e ees sopsna"s n'a ms9o s
all citizens Of State other than the State In
which suits w.ru brought The railroad corpora
tiau was citizen Ut the State In Which suit
was brought. There were also defendants, the
different Trustees In t1lc yarlous mortgages. Ana
seyerul of The number were also rltizens of the
States other than nj the Statcs In Which suits
| wusc brought. It was claimed by the dcfcntE-
ants that the Federal Courts had no Jurisdiction,
wusa clt!zens Of tho sarne S!ats With eoniulAitt-
ants. Tue Judge sahl TINT. OIL the bearing Fri
.iay, ho ind iutimatcd to eOuneel That jlrisdic-
tlon was not to be dsts1mined by tie M. TUT
pleader might put n party on one side
Or the other As he wished, the tmportant
requisite hs!Mg that all ssscessaEy parties were
before the Court. On looking at the whole
was between the rai1roaa on one side utl The
bo,ullulders and Trustees oil the other. Tie
Jurisdiction Of tho Court, tlltTeforc, was beyond
question, aud Tie motion to remand would tA
oyerruicl.
cRANK w. Cpkno d cAltK1S3.
| 1UE ll[IEitluM OfEF Alt pTQpEftF VI tiG EHH
tractors, fox u Howard. seems to be In a iall
way TO outlast tho lives Vt the present genera
t1on, md 1t atuuaily cumcs Up IL, some nea
way. Tile jast suit over thc mattel
one e e5SqSn 4;aaser. BY q G'pf he and rot ng4
agninst Conro ~ CarHlns to recover
damages for tic use Of tile property Wills IL
their hands As Is woll known, LIE property u
drivers, etc., wis sold to Jefferson ladgkins fo
tbs brnrt, Of G. y. Crane for s4o,0oo. rhre
tlays after, i1odgkius not having bald the prIcg
II sale was ms.lc to Couro u Carklns for 80,
1870. reyc1tcd this lust order, and decrcrd d
sAic to nodgkins to uu conflrned, nsl.l Enye III
latter permission to Bring suit to further deter
n,ne THE rights ut ts.e part!cs. UnAer thu
0. tho rents Aal profits during The time Conro l
Caskfua had tho property. Judge HARLAN sal
p. tint the material questions oi the Gus
had been determined DY ,t!e ilna order Of Judg
must be regarded us conclusive adiudcatio
: Of ronplnlnant's right to the property. ntld til
: Use Ut ttu property by Conro D. Cnrkins wns
/. dero.atlon of connlatnant's rights. a dtcrt
asked ngalnst Conro Il carktns. and, In asee
thinning tle yal,la ot the use Of the ornpertY. tt
:. pruhts uiade by such use vera to be- taken in
q ACCOUNT.
), uALn ys. CITY NATIONAL HAnE+
II This WINS n bill tu equity filed by Hale again
i. | the City NhttutI&l Bunk 10 reIu0r6 q cloud
tic title TO su.lte lat,a he dwned. The hank,
:. scenls, hsld TWO uotus Of *t,tD0 eas
male by q. y. Hubbard to tlalc, at
= hecurel BY note fur 5000 securp
Il br trust-tleet To tlIn property. III
II $5.00d note WIS rArt Of the fAcuMbrancu +
$2s5, ,0Ml On the property when it was convey
: to Hubbard, md the Il, ,0o0 notes wcse xlyci
It r,isa monay to pay of thu s5,tuD noss. Hu
J. bard subsequently, sold the $5,0W motto to Il
i bank In c1rflunge for III equal amount Of h
Y uwn paper hct1 bY It. Il lew mouths aft
t Hubbard found be could not pAy this S25, ,tD
il aud relcc4lsl tic property to Italo on .tlu III
IL ter ngrcel,,g to take care Ut this inrumhspnc
II EIalc consented to tukc tlle property buck III
Il pay 80 much u lhc snlount dun oil the $15.
< Us remained due. though he did not spcciicul
4 lree u, pay The $, ,t0 iu question pictged to Il
!. bauk, nInl ttlcn turned around aud hcgan ii
10 10 remove the cloud On his property causud
g. Tic lIeu OF the hank under tlu 5000 note n
t. tri1sttlceA secUrln. II, alleging tut such lie
It had breu paid by Hubbard, a.Hi that hu nin,.
~ did mol tssl,s,la It's puytMGnt. Judge 1isrl
III said IL was clear Hubbard cxcrutea tl.e qll
II clam III the belief, nu}ernlHccd largely II II
D. altoEethef, by ltateb conduct, tlut ll,e iatt
vi assumed and agreed To pay usl all the origin
Ut | ,Cu0 OF mites, IuSl.dsn!s tho 5000 ue
II whivh Hubbard had transferred to tho bxt
vt but Hubbard would not havo executed q
le .ieetl whrli by exprnsa terns excluded liu Z