The Delaware ledger. (Newark, Del.) 1879-19??, 1883-10-27
Recent Legal Decisions.

)EBT-LIEN OF BANKS, a stock i
older in a savings bank, died, heavily D
Indebted to the corporation. The bank
vent into liquidation and declared div Q
dend, but refused to pay the estate Of
J., claiming that it could apply the
AMOUNT of the dividend to his indebted
ness to it. An action was brought to
recover the dividends and the plaintiff
had verdict. From the judgment en-
tered upon his verdict the bank obtained
a writ of error to the Supreme Court Of
Pennsylvania Merchants Bank of Eas-
ton, VS.. Shouse, administratrix-but
that Court affirmed the determination
below. Judge Gordon, in the opinion,
said: "The defendants charter did
not give the baRk lien upon 5. IS stock
for any debt he might owe it, Neither
can we entertain the idea that the de-
PENDANT had common law lien upon
SIS stock. Corporations are not the |
creatures of the common law. Such a
thing as common law corporation is
wholly unknown to the laws of Penn
elvania, hence these artificial bodies
can have common law rights, except
as such rights may become incidental to
the proper execution of the legislative
grants by which such bodies are created.
But when for corporation a distinct
power or right is claimed, as in the
present case, such claim must have for
its foundation some statutory grant or
it has no validity. Besides, it has been
decided in this State that there is NO
such thing as common law lien on
stocks in favor Of poration for a
debt due it by shareholder.
| BANKRUPTCY FRAUD OF ONE
PARTNER DIsCHARGED.-One of a
firm of attorneys received money from
a client to invest, but converted it to
his own use. The firm went into bank
ruptcy and obtained a discharge. The eli.
l emit whose money hadIbeen taken by fraud
: sued one of the other partners for the
amount, claiming that as this liability
rested in fraud it was net, under tn,
Bankruptcy act, barred by the dis
charge. The defendant commended tina
as to him, he not having participates
in the fraud, the liability was simpl
u debt only, which the discharge releases
b him from. In this case-Cooper VS.
Pritchard--the plaintiff recovered
= Judgment, and the defendant carried
'' to the Court of Appeal in England
- where it was affirmed. The Master Q
the Rolls, Brett, in his judgment said
"As this money was intrusted to th
10 firm through one of its members VIII
h could receive it for the partnership
T. the defendant was liable before th
I'd bankruptcy, and the question now
r. wether he is still so. This turns upo
To the construction of the Bankrupt
w act, by which IAN order of discharI
of shall not release the bankrupt from al
debt or liability incurred by means
n any fraud or breach of trust.l Unle
II we can construe these words to mel
mt that the fraud must have been col
at mitted by him. the defends t, as
10. bankrupt, the contention that this is
he a simple debt cannot be allowed. The
ed is nothing to justify us in altering Il
ill words Of the section, or putting in al
I'M words which are not already there
~ Lord Justice Lindley added that I
Ity debt was debt of the firm, incurr
nd by fraud, and he illustrated this in t
following way: "Suppose in a firm
rm distillers or tobacconists one of t
nv partners, without the concurrence
ty, knowledge Of the other, in the coul
ust of the business of the firm, comm
offenses against the revenue la
'ull whereby penalties are incurred, t
debts SO arising would clearly be 4,
TIL cepted. The innocent partner CO,
the not say that he had taken no part
the the offenses against the revenue LAY
and therefore was entitled to his d
5 Of charge. The language of the 8
nd ton is general, and we ought ]
and to restrict it." Lord Justice ]
also said 81 see no reason for lin
, to ing the plain words of the secti
/ 1 This was a debt or liability cles
up incurred by means of a fra
lus- Whether it was incurred by mean
ngs breach of trust it is not necessary
decide"
and o .--...
,or, CUSTOMS DRAwBACKs-F AILu
OF THE SECRETARY TO CARRY {
REGULATIoNs.-An act of Congl
allows drawbacks to be made on a
all cles manufactured from imported !
INV terials and exported to the amount
duty paid upon the materials, but as
To- Secretary of the Treasury did not
force the regulation made to carry
u-lo act into effect the Court of Claims
cided it had no Jurisdiction of sui
:. recover the amount of such dutit
'' Campbell VS.. United States-brou
40" by them to recover the duties they
paid on linseed which they manu-
,oln tured into linseed oil and oil cake
~ had exported An appeal was takel
the Supreme Court of the Uni
'1.~ States, where the judgement was
go versed. Justice Miller, in the opin
N said /: ut would be curious thin
hold that Congress, after clearly de
ing the right Of the importer to rec
boys drawbacks upon subsequent expo
nusr ton of the imported article on wi
any he had paid duty. had emDoWered