The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1888-05-16
COURT CASES AT MACON.
Judge Speer Sets Aside the Winship
and Galloway AssiRnme nt.

and Galloway Assignment.
MACON, GA, May Is. The United States
Court, Judge Speer presiding, has been en-
gagged in the consideration of an important
case to day-that of August Bros, and
other creditors of the firm of Winship &
Galloway against Joel r. Galloway, surviv-
ing partner, aud W. p Baldwin, assignee,
the action being on bill filed in court to
set aside the assignment made by the sur
viving partner. The principal points
argued in the bill We're:
/. That the assignment was void upon the
ground that under the laws Of the state sur
wing partner could not make a valid deed OF
assignment with preferences, as was done in
this instance.
Q That on account of certain statements
made by Emory Winship on Feb; ~ last to
August Bros, and which insured sales OF GER
tain goods to Winship & Galloway, that the
same was not such fraud upon them as would
vitiate this assignment, and not as would au-
thorize the Cou, in equity to set aside the deed
of assignment.
3. Because the assignment did not set up as
required by law the assets of the firm Of Win
ship & Galloway. but also the personal assets OF
Joel T. Galloway, the surviving partner.
4. Because on account Of the preference made
to Messrs. IIardenan and Davis, the attorneys
who drafted the deed Of assignment for 500
was such reservation for the benefit of the
assigns as would also make void this assignment.
The case has attracted considerable atten-
ton and the decision of the court has been
expected with interest.
THE DECISION.
Judge Speer held:
!. That under he decisions in the cases of
Crittenden VS.. Coleman and Turnipseed vs..
Schaffer etc such assignments should be con
strued literally In favor Of creditors and strictly
against the assguees; that every requirement
of the statutes must be complied with; that in
a deed of assignment made by Nj. Galloway,
the surviving partner, it nowhere appeared that
the firm of Winship & Galloway, or either of
them. were insolvent at the time the deed
made that the deed of assignment must
ailirmatiyely show this fact and without such
allegation the deed was nulity.
?. That the schedules attached to the deed
were not full and complete. the statistics re-
quired; that the mere statement of such in
debtedness was not sufficient. The nature of it
must be- stated in full.
3. That on account of the preference made by
the surviving partner of the attorneys who
drafted the deed of assignment under the decis-
ion of the Supreme Court OF Maryland, which
state has a law similar to the statute in force in
Georgia, it was such reservation for the
benefit of debtor made void the assign
ment.
The court, however, held that under the
evidence submitted, the allegation of fraud
and bad faith by Mr.. Winship was not
sufficient. Upon these grounds the deed is
SET aside, and a receiver was appointed.
The Superior Court to-day was engaged
in hearing a suit city against the East
tennessee, Virginia and Georgia railroad)
to recover property valued at $4,000,
granted to the company for railroad pur-
poses, but which the city claims has not
been so used