National Republican., 1883-08-27
cApr. a. anANr,s LOUISE.

The Case Again Removed from the Dis
tr,et Courts TO the United states Supreme
Court,
There was filed on Saturday in the clerks
Office of tho District Of Columbia, in the long
contested case of the Phmnix Mutual Life In
surance company, of Hartford, Conn, vs..
Grant, involving the Albert Grant estate,
papers which remove tho case from the dis
trict courts TO the supreme court Of the United
States These papers were bond and a
supersedeas issued by Associate Justice Miller,
of the supreme court Of the United States, to
supersede tho recent decree Of the court in
banc against Capt. Grant for over half mil
lion dollars
In his petition to Justice Miller, also fled,
on which the supersedsas WAS granted, Capt.
Grant charges in brief that tho decree was
irregularly passed on ex parte hearing at
time when the case WAS not calendared with
out notice to him or his council, Gen. Butlor
or Mr.. Davidge, and in their absence and by
| m ILLEGALLY constituted court of only three
| members of whom one was incompetent to
sit at the hearing, having heard the case in
court below; also that the decree was passed
without argument of any kind, against tho
rules OF the court and the solemn protest OF
| the defendant Grant.
1t also appears from this petition that while
the case was ON appeal to the supreme court
of the United States from former decree,
the auditor of the supreme court Of the Dis
trict of Columbia made a report or an ex-
parte hearing for the above amount, while
the evidence taken by Capt, Grant shows
that the only legal incumbrance on his prop
erty up to March /, 1873, was $10S,9lS,
at which date it was fully satisfied
by contract of sale of eleven of the
fourteen houses in the row. 1t is further set
up in the record that year later the plain
! tiffs refused to carry out the contract and
commenced suit upon the notes in settlement
of which the eleven houses were to have been
conveyed to the Insurance company. Grant
also claims that the depreciation of the prop
erty. the sale of which could not be effected
prior to the panic of November, 1873, Though
| the existence of this contract was more then
an equitable Offset for the company's claim.
He further represents that the record shows
that this case has been kept in the courts for
over nine years, the property through such
| litigation rapidly falling in value, and in a
petition filed with the court he claims this is
done by the company that it may carry the
claim among its assets at between four and
five hundred thousand dollars, whereas, by
any possible settlementin the courts, or other
wise they could not hope to realize over a
fourth of that sum, and that a settlement
would bring heavy amount on the money
side of their balance sheet and throw them
into bankruptcy.
In 1876 the claim is carried in their report
at $3l4,OOo principal and 100000 interest,
while expert testimony before the auditor of
the court then put the value of the entire
property at SlS2,200 a difference of 5231, 500
In the same report the company showed its
assets to be SlO ,322.5S and its disabilities
S1O,219,643; surplus, $4,679.5s, or a quarter
million less than this excess Of valuation OF
the property on which the claim rested.
He charges, further, a combination to de-
stroy the value of the property, in order that
at forced sale it may be bought in at nom.
inal price by the parties engaged in this
scheme.
The action of Justice Miller now takes the
case from the district court, where it has beer
so long pending TO the supreme court fol
final determination