Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-13
RAYMOND saws he can bring 500 GOO into

they converted the assets to their own use.
The property was fine paying property and
the ASSIGNEE used his power TO try and
force creditors to give up their claims to the
Peoples Bank and take its stock therefor
Thesixteen he tCatlin) represent ted refused, and
sued prior to the transfer of the property and
got judgments despite the assignee's resist
ance and, as such judgment creditors, are now
impeaching the assignment as fraudulent
one and want it set aside.
Mr.. Raymond here said he'd consent to the
injunction against the Judgments being set
aside, and the Court ordered the entry TO be
made.
IN THE DEPTHS OF THE LAW.
Mr.. Freeman, for the Peoples Bank, here
said there were demurrers not yet disposed of.
He had deemed it proper to call attention to
the fact that the case was not in a condition
to be tried. The issues were not all settled
and there were defendants not served. The
PEOPLES Bank, by the assignment to it, is the
successor to all the rights Of the Odd Fellows
Bank, and is entitled to pro rata distribu-
ton Of the money in the hands of the as
signee among all the creditors, if the assign
ment is valid If it is invalid, it is still clear
Mr.. Smith has large amount of assets on
hand that ought 60 be distributed The real
issue is, have Mr.. Catlin's clients legal rights
giving them preference over the Peoples
Bank?
George Cadwalader (for Z. W. Fratt) asked
if all the parties had been served.
bIr. Catlin-We can't say; we are not
plaintiff.
The Court-Are not the unserved parties
necessary ones?
Mr.. Catlin-Only those desiring to impesch
the assignment are necessary. Ii every cred-
itor must be brought in, we may never get
into Court.
The Court-Haven't they the right to come
Mr.. Catlin-Mr Smiths failure or delay
to bring them in should not delay the cross
action of the sixteen creditors. We ask to
have our judgments made effectual.
The Court-If they are parties with equal
equities with you, shouldn't they share IN the
benefits?
Mr.. Catlin replied that his clients are the
only Judgment creditors, the only ones at
lacking the assignment. The assignee brought
them into Court, and being in they filed a
creditors bill in the case. They had the
same rights under it as if Smith had never
sued.
Nr. Edgerton-Wh asks for the case to
be continued or stricken from the calendar?
Mr.. CadwaladeI-I say it is not in con-
dition for trial.
Mr.. Edgerton-Who do you appear for:
Mr.. Cadwalader-F. w. Fratt, a defendant
Mr.. Freeman asked that the case be put in
proper condition before going to trial. He
never heard before Of an attempt to distri-
butte fund until the Court had jurisdiction
of all the parties among whom it is to be dis
tributed.
Mr.. Edgerton said there are nearly 800 de-
PENDANTS, and asked on whose behalf Mr..
Freeman made his demand?
Mr. Haymond-Well, now
Mr.. Edgerton-I thought you had got out
of the case and gone after that $500 coo of
yellow gold.
Mr.. Freeman represent the Peoples
Bank.
Mr.. Edgerton said he had no right to make
the suggestion then, for any one else. The
case can only go on on the basis that the as
signment is valid. A creditor charges it is
fraudulent. 1t is no answer to say there are
800 creditors, and some are unserved, and
therefore the creditors attacking 'tproceed.
The Court said if distribution was TO be
made, all ought to be in.
Mr.. Edgerton said his clients attacked the
assignment as fraud. Can the plaintiff every
time the case is called say he hasn't yet
served all parties, and so delay? His clients
were not plaintiffs, and could not bring in
the unserved parties, and were not to blame
for the Incidence of The plaintiff.
Mr.. Cadwalsder wanted Mr. Raymond
placed under rule of Court to serve all the
parties with summons.
Mr.. Haymond-We have got so many in
now that we can't proceed.
The Court asked if distribution should be
ordered, if the sums for unserved parties
could not be held by the Court till the parties
were brought in?
L. oil sclo
be brought in first.
Mr.. Edgerton-Wh are you here:
MIR. GENERALIZATION T. W. Frat
MIR. Edgerton-He suffered defeat year
LEGAL STARRING.
Mr.. Catlin said Judge Clark. had fled
demurrer for Fratt. 1t was overrulsd at
Auburn by Judge Myers, but the records
are not here TO show it. A few days ago Mr..
Cadwaladar was substituted for Judge
Clark. Frat never assumed and is not a
Judgment creditor. He is claiming nothing.
Sixteen citizens here show they are judg-
ment creditors, and allege the assignment to
he null and void, and ask to set it aside.
They have right TO ask it, because on its face
il conveys legal title.
MIR. Edgerton said his side alleges that
Pratt is as deep il the fraud as any one is
one OF TIE CDHSIflfdtoES III JliS cAbe- Ills ue-
r.ur7er has been overruled. He has filed an an
swer, and now year after comes in and seeks
q continuance. That's just what is going on !:
delay, dilatory steps, efforts to exhaust the
parties and worry them. Postpone the case
and next year some one else will pop up with
more excuses. Suppose a single creditor at
tacks an assignment. Has he not an indie
pendent right to be heard?
The Court What would be done with the
property as to the others?
MIR. Edgerton-I.et the others look out. If
one neglects his rights, it is only his fault
and not that of the diligent creditor.
The Court-Suppose the assignment de-
clared weld. and you go on with your judg
meut, haven't they right to be heard when
You take the property? Wouldn't they be
entitled to enjoin?
Mr. Edgerton-We are not to bring them
in They take care of themselves. We
can't make other creditors parties to the
proceedings nor be delayed by their inaction.
We stand here as original sctors, and as if
not brought in by the assignee, and in such a
case the Court would not delay the party.
Mr. Cadwalader-There cant be half
dozen determinations OF the Issues.
Mr. Raymond said if it would suit he was
willing to dismiss the case.
Mr. Catlin objected and said his judgment
creditors had the right to proceed indepen.
deat Of all other creditors against a fund and
an Invalid assignment.
Mr. Haymond-I concede that to be the
law.
Mr. Catlin said the issue was the validity
of the assignment, and the results of setting
it aside can be cared for when it is adjudged,
but the proceeding cannot be stopped by one
saying . am a creditor, but not a Judgment
creditor :" or 81 am a creditor, but have
been paid" etc. He would agree if any one
wanted to file supplemental answers they
might be considered 10, and as denying all
things they can, and that the issues are
made up.
Mr.. Raymond ssid Smith is a trustee Of
q fund, no matter how it came to his pos
session. It is not case for q cross com
plant He saw that al the first, but waived
it. There is nothing in his bill to make a
cross complaint necessary. Smith AYERS all
things necessary to be known. The simple
denial Of his trusteeship raises all the issues
that can be considered by reason of cross
complaint. The judgment creditors elected
not to bring separate bill, and if there
has been any delay it has been
theirs. Failing to bring in separate
bill. there is no longer a case in
equity, but under the code, and then all the
parties must be brought in. The injunction
is dissolved, and they can now levy their exc
cution if they are so sure this was fraudu-
lent sale. All Smith asks is to be relieved
of the money. He sdon't care if the assign
ment is broken. H3 viii get twice the pay if
it is broken. He can't be discharged as