The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-05-17

decision OF some importance to the creditors
OF Harrison's Bank was rendered yesterday in the
Supreme Court. and the probabilities are that
those who have obtained Judgment for their de-
posts will now stand in the iignt OF preferred
creditors. and pe paid before the sureties on Mr..
Hsrrfson's bond The question grew out of the
appointment OF Jcdge 4. n. Lamb as receiver o.
The bank. soon after his appointment, Mr.. J. t.
PresslJ. deposition. took Judgment against the
bank for % 80 L. and hied complaint asking for
an execution against the property OF the deiead.
ants then in the hands OF the receiver
and alleging that his sproinmsnt void b.
cause appointed in vacation demurrer was
filed and sustained and Nj. Psessly carried the
point of iav 10 the supreme Court. The decision
yesterday renaDded the case back 10 the love.
-conrt with Instructions to override the demurrer
holding ilist court could not sppoiut Receiver
during vacation in q case in which the action
had not teen begun. and that the filing OF q
petition for receiver by Alfred Harrison against
John c. & Harrison and the fact thar the latter
came into court and acknowledged the fscs set
forth did not constitute action. JUICE hitch III
rendered The opinion, all the other Judges con
curing excsp. Judge Elliott, VINO was n Il In the
case ct all. The elect OF this decision wold sem
TO lay The property OF the Harrisoas open ex-
the receiver not. aud 81 il certsfuIy has
besn o.sposed OF there Is little question but II is
subject stu the Judgments rendered in favor Of
appointment app men OF Judge Lamb wss ILLEGAL
i! this IS really the case, the Judgment creditors
would have TO be satisfied q rst OF the property
bell nging 20 the Harrisons ct the time OF their
failure Jrdge Lamb does not appear 10 % fully
satisfied with regard 10 The effects of the decision.
and when questioned on this point said: Il
haven't efven the case any close attention, be
cause did not anticipate such a decision. aud an
conssquerily not prepared 10 say exactly what
lis ELECTS will be- IL was taken 10 the Srp-e se
Court on demurrer and not in the complaint Ill.
rect, and now SIS the demurrer IS oyerrule1 sup
pose the facts alleged in the complaint will have
TO re established IL my appointment was Illegal.
have been the receiver in fact and supoos ?
tbat under certain circumstances my official IS
IN that eapscity will not be overthrown. Judge
Hill said TO few days ago. regar ling this case
that If IL vas reversed In the Supreme Court. it
was his opinion that that oil not settle the mat
ter, but tina, the issues would have to be made mp
and tried on the original complaint IN the usual
way" Concerning the various judgments taken
by PTessly and others and whether they will he
preferred over general creditors. Judge Lamb said
II am not prepared to say exactly what eject it
viii have, only ] should not be surprised II ex-
eCution on the property could be taken on the
property. even IL soule OF 1t had been sold by me
under this ruling. don't soy that this will be the
case. because have not Looked up the points in
yolved. II it should prove 10 b., however, these
judgments will consume all the estate, from which
expect 10 realize only between $4,000 ana SS0,-
coo. that Is IL some LITIGATION that is nov pending
Is decided IN our dvOr.'