The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-11-04
A COMPLEX LEGAL QUESTION.
A Suit in Connecticut Against Fletcher &
Sharpe Involving Some Nice Law Points.

THE most important case now pending in the
Supreme Court of Errors says a special dis
patch from Hartford, Conn, ''is that of Wins
low, Lanier g. Co., of New York, against Fetch
er & Sharpe, of indianapolis, Ind, which turns
upon question never before raised in any Of
the States except Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
The question is of peculiar interest here, since
very many citizens and large corporations hold
stock Of the character under discussion in pledge
to secure loans. The amount involved is some
thing over $40, 600. The facts are that in the
latter part of 1888, the Indiana firm borrowed of
the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company,
of this city, $780, 900, and pledged stock of the In
dianapolls National Bank, whose value was $780,
O00 to secure payment of the loan. Subsequently
the same firm had transactions with Winslow,
Lanier & Co, whereby they became indebted
to that house in the sum of $4,000. The Con-
necticut Mutual held bank powers to transfer
the stocks, which powers, together with the
tlfcates, were deposited with them at the time
the loan was made, and have since continued in
their possession The interest has been paid
punctualy and the company has continued the
investment thus made. In the spring of 1854
receiver was appointed by the Superior Court at
indianapolis of the partnership of Fletcher
g Sharpe, and in July following Winslow,
the $4,000 due them from the Indiana
firm, and factorized the Connecticut Mutual
Life Insurance Company, hoping by that process
to attach in the hands of the company the mar
gin of $40, 900 over and above the amount of
stock necessary to secure their loan. Whether
this margin was attached by that process
is the question in the case If the process
succeed in this purpose, then the SAC, 900
will go into the hands of Winslow, Lanier & Co.,
to help TO satisfy their claim. II it does not
succeed, the property THAT is, the margin will
be delivered over to the receiver in Indianapolis
to be by him distributed among all the creditors
of the firm. Fletcher & Sharpe appear in the
action only to plead the jurisdiction OF the court
claiming, that as both parties are nonresident
no personal results against the defendants can
De reached in the case, and that the court can
have no jurisdiction in the matter unless the
factorizng process has attached something in
the hands of the Connecticut Mutual To this
the plaintiffs agree, admitting that the sole ques
ton is as to the attachment. The statute re-
latlng to foreign attachment provides that there
may be an attachment by that process
when the effects of the defendent in
any civil action in which a judgment or decree
for the payment of money may be rendered are
concealed in the hands of his agent or trustee
SO that they cannot be found to be attached"
etc. Under this statute the plaintiffs contend
that they have made an attachment of the mar
gin of stock in the hands of the Connecticut
Mutual, because these shares of stock pledged
to and held by the insurance company
effects Of the defendants, were in the hands of
the insurance company as their agent or trustee
and were concealed in the hands of the insurance
company so that they could not be attached.
The defendants deny these propositions, insist
ing that though the certificates are here in the
hands of the insurance company, the stock itself
is in Indianapolis where the bank is located. and
that stock so held cannot be attached here by
process of foreign attachment"
The suit will in way affect the assets of
Fletcher e Sharpe Receiver Wallace stated to
Journal reporter yesterday. The Supreme
Courts have hitherto held that certificates are
simply evidence of property, and cannot be at
tached like money deposits or tangible property.
He does not, therefore, believe that the suit is
likely to be won by the plaintiffs. The claim
has already been reduced to $4,000.