Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-12-31
A LEGAL ROMANCE.
Love and business Relationship All
Mixed Up Together.

Mixed Up Together.
MEMPHIS, TENN, Dec. %. "A peculiar
case has just been decided by Judge
Hammond In the United States Circuit
Court Tie case is mat OF Samuel f.
Hunt. VS.. Jacob Fisher, administrator,
and others, and was removed from Jack
son TO Memphis for trial. The facts are
these: In 1856 ]. W. Walker and c. B.
Young, the last named Cincinnati man,
were operating the Brown Iron Furnace,
In Decatur county, Tenn, under the firm
name OF Walker & Young. The firm was
wealthy, possessing valuable mining
property and store and stock Of goods,
valued altogether at some $780, 900, OF
which Walker owned one-third.
Their business prospered and wealth
seemed in their grasp, when the old. old
story OF weak woman arose and altered
the whole aspect of affairs. In fact, Mrs.
W alker tell in love with Young, and their
improper relations were soon detected by
Walker. The latter, however, did not
seize shotgun and slaY the oetrayer of
his wife, nor did he seek to drown his
sorrows In the flowing bowl. On the con-
trary, he TOOK a Dusiness-like view of the
situation. and after consultation with
his partner and erring wife, sold out his
one-third interest in the property and
ousiuSSs W HIS vile. stlpuidttuk oHiN luut
she should settle all his partnership debts
and all his Individual debts, and pay him
81 900 annually during his life time.
After this agreement divorce was OBJ
tanned and Mrs. Walker married Young,
and they continued the business. After
some time Young went into bankruptcy
on his own account at Nashville, inducing
his wife to join the creditors of the firm in
settlement of composition in bank
w ad in No inf
ment of trustee, who took possession of
the furnace and undertook to manage it
| and pay the debts. They first executed
mortgage for $4,000, TO raise money,
| which was to be a prior lien over
all other creditors. The money was
not paid, and the mortgages sold
| out the property In the Federal Court at
| Nashville. Prior to this time Walker,
| who after the divorce had become a pau
| per, filed bill in the Chancery Court Of
| Decatur county to force Young and his
| vile to pay the annuity and the debts pro-
vided for in the contract. A few months
| aIterward the Bank of Tennessee filed a
! bill in the Chancery Court at Nashville
to enforce the payment OF debt due I'M
der that contract. In this case there was
decree OF sale, and Samuel +. Hunt, a
| Cincinnati lawyer, bought the one
third interest which Walker had
transferred to his wife for 500. Walker
| died, and his administrator continued the
litigation in Decatur county, and pro-
cured a decree of sale. This litigation
was unknown to the htigants at Nash
vile, and that in Nashville was unknown
to the lItgants in Decatur county. Hunt
| filed bill in the Decatur Chancery Court
to enjoin the sale by the administrator,
and got an injunction and removed the
case to the Federal Court, where the ad-
ministrator filed cross bill to enforce
his rights under the Decatur decree. The
case, therefore, presents the following
novel situations:
| First, there is contract between man
and wife, by which he sells out to her his in
terest in partnership and authorizes
ner to carry on the partnership; for a
few months there was a partnership with
married woman; then a partnership
with a divorced wife; then partnership
| with a mans own wife. Then follows a
bankruptcy Of the individual partnership;
a carrying on OF the business by trustees
in bankruptcy; bills to foreclose; in
solvent bills by administrators; bills by
creditors on their own account, and a
general muss and mixing in of things.