New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-05-21
ARE THERE TWO LOTHROPS 7
POINTS FOR THE SENATE TO CONSIDER
WAS 1T OUR NEW MINISTER TO RUSSIA waoM THE
COURT OF APPEALS LAsHED WITHOUT MERCY
Tn q case hroupht before the New York Court

| In case brought before the New 1 ork OourI
OF Appeals in 1868, George N Lothrop, lawyer or
| Detroit Mich, appears to great disadvantage
President Cleveland has recently appointed as Minister
| to St. Petersburg George " N. Lothrop, lawyer OF
Detroit Mich It scarcely possible that there are
two lawyers Of that name practising law In Detroit ii
the Lohrop who has been appointed Minister TO 81
Petersburg is the man who Is referred 10 oy the
Court Of Appeals the Of the will become
proper matter for consideration by the United STATES
| Senate next winter when it comes TO pass upon
the question Of the confirmation of this together with
many OF the other unfortunate appointments Win "hich
President Cleveland and Secretary Bayard have been
| degrading our foreign service.
Additional Importance is to be attached to the case De-
of the high reputation Of the Court from which the
| opinion emanated The New-York Court OF Appeals Is
generally recognized in this country in respect TO ts
ability and character, second only to the Ohlteo
States Supreme Court II any. The title OF the case
referred the State of Michigan against the
Phoenix Bank. 1t found in 80 NewYork Reports, page
| g. Following the facts as stated In the OPINION
The Phoenix Bank March, 1888, advanced to one Nor
ton who held the time Official financial position In
the of Michigan. two drafts amounting to $l64oO
Farmers and Mechanics Bank OF Detroit Tor
$780, the other the Bank Of River Rasin, Monroe,
for $4,000 The advances were made at the request OF
the Governor of Michigan, but as found by the Court
neither Governor, Norton as the financial
officer of the Legislature had power to contract snch
debt; and the Court found that there never was any
liability In equity and good conscience on the part OF the
STATE OF Michigan refund the advances to the bank
held by the Court that these officers acted without
authority the state and afterward violated their
| own individual faith, and, therefore, that
| this demand not legally contracted by
| the State Subsequently tho Ph9nx Bank,
! which was a New-York corporation. settled with
the Michigan banks receiving upon the settlements
certain securities and deeds. Mr.. Stewart tho agent
through whom these settlements made afterward
turned them over Phenix Bank and several thou
sand dollars realized from the sale of some OF
them.
George " n. LOthrOp then practising law at De-
trot In 1854 he employed by the Phenix Bank 70
charge of the prosecution OF its claim against the
state of Michigan ami in May OF that year he presented
the matter before the Boarl OF State Auditors The
| Court of Appeals. In commenting upon Mr. Lothrops
actions, makes the following quotations from his adj
dress before the board: "The standing OF the
claim, as well the amount will entitle 1t
to your full Investigation. l do not hesitate
to invite such Inquiry; for il the claim Is not
well founded both in law and equity, ask nothing at
your hands. . The claim OF the Phenix Bank is
for the OF advanced to the state the 18th
| OF March, A. ID. 1888"
The opinion Of the Court OF Appeals then continues
follows This statement of Mr. Lothrop is then his
torcal considerable length to prove the faith OF
the State pledged to pay the demand At the end Of
which history Mr.. Lothrop claims TO have established
six propositions the sixth aud last OF which, only as
10th. That said fuih pioated 1.-The PheHir Bank
has peuer been repaid a dollar 10 his day. At the
close he adds now 6etteue that have given Jdr
presentation OF this claim have hesitation in say
ing an the most solemn manner that as a lawyer have
doubt that any Of justice could it be brought
before them, would at render Judgment for the
claimants"
The itazaon in the above is that made in the official
court report, That which follows is
Upon this written statement Of Mr. Lothrop acting as
agent OF the Phoenix Bank and upon the documents
he produced the Board OF Auditors decided that the
Bank was justly and equably entitled for principal and
interest its claim to S3j,603 "a. and in December,
1854, the State Of Michigan paid the bank that sum-
The present suit brought by the State OF Michigan
to recover back this from the bank the ground
that the bank entitled 1t either In law In
equity. The Court finds that wnen the claim was pre-
tied before Board of Auditors member OF the
Board had any knowledge suspicion of the settlement
that had made by the FhGnix Bank with the Michi
gan banks OF the turning over
TO the Phoenix Bank the proceeds OF
those settlements The rest OF the far as 1t re-
lates to Mr.. Lohrop, is best told in the language OF
Judge Potter in his Court Of Appeals opinion.
He at first quotes with approval the following among
other findings OF the court below:
"That the allegations in the said written communca
lions by Mr. Lothrop to said Board OF State Auditors
that the the Phoenix Bank has in fact been
paid and that he would fairly and fully state to said
Board every defence had heard limited at and
the statement which he did therein make in regard TO
the alleged supposed defences and his omission and
the omission Of said PhGnix Bank to notify said Board
OF said given by the Phoenix Bank to the River
Raisn Bank not pay said draft for $1,000; Of the
settlement made by said Stewart with said bank Of
the said settlement made by him with the Michigan
State Bank Of the collection by said Stewart OF
of the said securities so as aforesaid received by him
from said River Raisn Bank, and OF his substitution
| OF the residue thereof for other property with
o. NV RaOD In enid
deed Of conveyance from Stewart to the old Phoenix
Bank the date of August s. 1882 of the said deed
settlement and release between said bank and Stewart
OF the date OF August B. 1852, were designed and intend
ed 10 isead he sad Board Of STATE auditors as 10 the
actual Jacs and merits Of the case reiangto said claim
and that such allegations made and such omissions
teere pracised IN the fuH beIef that Vne actual facts Of
the ease such notice thereof as wod lead 70 inquiry
should 70 the knowledge Of said Board, The said
claim tsotd be rejected and dsalio~sd untounded IN
Justice eqtitu"
Judge Potter then continues "This brings us to the
examination OF the leading feature and most important
point In this case TO wit whether the obtaining
money from the State Of Michigan upon claim upon
which there liability upon the state in equity
and good conscience through the medium Of OF the
tribunals acting udcially in the matter by means
OF false and fraudulent allegations and representations
OF false and fraudulent omissions OF facts where the
false allegations and representations made and the
| omissions practised designed and intended to
mislead the said tribunal to the actual facts and
merits the relating to said claim and when such
allegations and such omissions practsed in the full
belief by the party making and the that
IL the OF the case notlceof them
would lead inquiry should come to the knowledge OF
such tribunal that tho said claim would be rejected and
disaowed unfounded in justice equity, can be
covered back from the party obtaining 1t by such
means
"1he facts found By the Judge estp5hsh case Of
active designed and intended fraud he part Of The
dsfendans NOT only IN the statements allegations and
representations made, but dssgned and Intended
fraud m ohdt omitted 10 be stated whieh IN lao
amounts Jrauduient eonceaient IL not merely