The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-18
WARMERS PROFITS"
Referee Cole Decides that He Is Liable for
More Than Million Dollars.

New YORK, March I'm. Hamilton Cole,
referee in the action brought by George B. Holt,
the assignee for the benefit of the depositors of
Ferdinand Ward, against VIM. S. Warner, fled
his report with the clerk Of the Supreme Court
to-day. It is in favor of Julien T. Davies, the
receiver of the firm of Grant g. Ward. and finds
that the payments of all moneys made by Ward.
either by his individual check or by the checks
of Grant e. Ward, upon the so-called contract
business, were fraudulent and void as against
the defendent, Julien T. Davies, as receiver. and
that Warner must pay over to Davies, as re-
ceiver, all moneys received by him from Ward
over and above the amount paid by him to
Ward. This sum the referee finds 10 be s., 255,-
361. "a, which, with interest thereon from May 6,
1884-$140, 39L 20-makes the total amount to be
recovered 81, 395, 752 81. He further directs that
the defendants, Warner and his wife, execute
and deliver, within thirty days from the filing of
this judgment, such deeds of conveyance, release
and quitclaim as may be necessary to satisfy the
judgment
In the opinion which Referee Cole filed with
his report he says that the claim of Julien
Z. Davies, as receiver of the firm OF
Grant & Ward is coextensive with
that of the plaintiff The defendant, the
Marine Bank, and Walter S. Johnson claim
also preferred by John H Morris. assignee, the
sheriffs of New York and Kings counties, and E.
G. Ward. The referee then recites at some
length Wards welknown method of conducting
his business. He says IF Grant & Ward, at
the time these payments to Warner were made,
were under no disabilities as to the disposition
Warner in this action If Warner
was valid creditor of Grant g. Ward
to the. amount of these payments.
no recovery can be had. During the whole term
of its existence, including the period covering
the transactions mentioned between Warner
and Grant 81 Ward, that firm was hopelessly
insolvent. 1t kept going from bad to worse
by Ward on May Z 1884. stands IN the same
situation as the money claimed. l see ele-
ments of duress in the matter, nor did Warner
employ any but legitimate means to obtain this
transfer; but the transfer was wholly without
consideration. The obligation given was mere
waste-paper, and could not be enforced by any
one When Warner took these transfers he
knew of the insolvency of the firm. His right
to hold the property depends entirely upor his
was not valid creditor of either Ward or Grant
& Ward No recovery can be had against
Warner for the amount of certain checks paid to
him, for what purpose does not appear. These
transactions must be assumed to be valid in the
absence of proof to the contrary, nor can any
money be had upon the profits paid upon
certain pool transactions, it not sufficiently ap
pearing that these were not actual transactions.
There remains to be determined the qestion as
to who is entitled to recover these moneys and
property from Warner. / fail to see any valid
claim on the part of John Morris assignee, or
the attachments under which the sherifs of
New York and Kings have been vacated. Under
the evidence the transfer of real estate to Ella
e.. Ward was in fraud of creditors, and
she has no dover right in real estate,
for the reason that the same was purchased
with money of the firm from the assets of the
firm. AS to the Marine Bank and its receiver.
if they have any specific claim they
will be left free to enforce it against the
property in the hands of him who RECEIVERS it.
AS to the moneys recovered. it would seem clear
that they are the assets of the firm. think.
also it is established that all the property trans
ferred by Ward May was purchased with
firm moneys improperly placed by Ward to his
personal account"