New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-06-30
TIE COURTS.
SEATS IN THE EXCHANGES.

SEATS IN THE EXCHANGES.
The COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES THAI THEY ARE
PROPERTY, AND SUBJECT 70 SALE TO PAY TIE
HOLDER. DIETS.
II has been for a long time a much-mooted
question: about Whcl the judges Of the lower courts
have held widely differing opinions as to whether seat
IN the stock Exchange ia one OF the other exchanges
Of ike character property IN the sense that would
make liable to sale on an execution against the
property of the owner. The highest appellate Court
"a Pennsylvania held that % was not and that it
could not be sold TO pay debts. IL the Common Pleas
Court in this city the judges have been pretty evenly
divided il opinion although It decided at Grneral
Term reversing Judge Van Hoeseu aud Judge Van
Brunt dissenting that Il properly ana subject TO
sale The superior Court General Term reached tie
same conclusion.
The question has been set by decision Of the
Court of Appeals rendered last week IL the Of
Powell receiver. against Waldron and another. The
Court In that affirmed the judgment Of the Supreme
Court General Term III Brooklyn il holding that such
seat was property and passed TO receiver appointed
IN slpulrneutary proceedings as any other property
would The judgment debtor LOuis L. Robbins,
rDo vas a member of the nrD OF L. y
Freeman & Co. when Mr.. Robbins went into the
rm b. signed partnership agreemeLi that mis- seat
the sew York Cotton Exchange should be liable FOR the
payneEt OF any firm debts. Mr. Freeman died and the
sdinuIstrator recovered Judgment against Mr. Robbins
IN January for more than $1,000; Mr.. Robbins or
dercd transfer El- IN the Exchange 10 pay the
debt and was euoined from using II ily longer lac De
feu1auts Messrs. WalrOn ana IaIhtor held
the sent as collateral FOR a loan Of 500
HE present suit was brought by the receivers
of Mr. Roebnss property appointed in supple
men srv cccduCs that the receiver might he allowed
TO redeem Dy paying tue amount VI the claim OF
Ne-srs drOu * IaintOI, and That the ia ter should
transfer the seat 10 tie receiver 10 be sod 10 pay
the Freeman judgment.
Judge Fucn writes opinion OF the Court ofA ppe as.
e. winch there Is dissent. He says: We think the
ri,t Of the u! gIneut debtor TO seat IN the Cotton tx
.uee Wa properly. 11It had value proved and
IL co. icedri aud that it could be transferred to
ceraiu c-. or putcha-ers under prescribed rules ana
oudtlous established. The defendants took 10
crv for nat debt and thereby plainly Treated IL
vaIuare property Although % n character some hat
peculiar ts restricted IT. range ~ puEchdscr7 mar
row and s ownership clOggcd with conditions, % was
nevertheless valuable right capaOie OF Transfer ana
correctly decided 10 De property II was something
more than a mere personal license or privilege, Tor
II could pass from 10 another OF q certain class
OF persons and belong fully 70 the assignee us II DID
L. the assiguOr That charac eristic gave II not only
but mar ket value which usually belongs only 10 things
which are the dntcct OF however II Offered frum
the ucurpOrea hts, earlier recognized and described
IL possessed the essential aTAc.cri-cs IL could
he transferred from hand 10 hand aid all the time
keep its inherent value, anG De as freely aud
ruy enjoyed by the permitted purchaser by the
orr gtnal owner We should make Of ~ an anomaly DIM
cgt 10 deal with and understand II We failed
il As property The authorities which determine 1t 20 be
such seem 10 better reasoned ana more wisely consld
cred man those deny to II that although
the subject ownership ~ and Of sale. Being prop
ery passed receiver IN the suppl meutdry pro-
ceedlng subject the lien night o. the Ccfeuuan-."
A L. SheustOne appeared Tor tne receiver aud Il, j.
Moses IL. Tor Messrs. MaldrOu aud IalntOr