The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-01-18
THE wEIsBR1N LIrIGANTs.
A Decision Rendered Favorable to the
General Creditors.

General Creditors
The Weisbein case occupied the entire day
Yesterday in the superior court, and at the
hour Of adjournment last night dispositions
were being read to the jury by complain
ants counsel, Samuel B. Adams, Esq ,
reading the interrogatories, and Hon. f.
c. duBignon, reading the corresponding
answers
David Weisbein was dry goods merchant
at No. l53 BrOughton street, who carried a
heavy stock and, without previous warn
ing, suddenly left the city, leaving a heavy
Indebtedness behind him, principally due
10 New York creditors. After Weisbein
left Mr.. Licatenstein took possession of the
stock under a power of attorney from
Weisbein, but H. b. Clahin & Co., and
Jaffray & Co., two of Weisbein's creditors,
seized portion of the stock upon a levy,
and transfer of the goods was made to
Claflin q Co. and Jaffray & Co. by Lich-
tenstein.
The general creditors denied the right of
Lichtenstein TO transfer the goods, although
the seizing creditors claimed they had been
obtained by Weisbein through fraudulent
representations, and 80 the general creditors
had a receiver appointed, and are proceed
ing under the claim that there were no pre-
ferred creditors The original plaintiffs
were the Jersey Continental Works, but
other creditors have been made parties COM
plainant from time to time until nearly
every prominent member of the bar is ar
rayed on the side of the parties complainant,
Messrs. Garrard & Meldrim representing
the defendants. The case is likely to occupy
the rest of the week.
On Wednesday counsel for defendants
argued a motion Tor new suit, which was
opposed by counsel on the other side, and
yesterday morning Judge Adams denied the
motion, and his decision was listened to
with the deepest interest. 1t was as fol
lows:
|. If this power of attorney did not authorize
Mr.. Lichtenstein to transfer the goods which
were delivered to Messrs. Clafin & Co. and
Jafray Co., then these creditors, with full
notice of this want of authority, did not obtain
title TO the goods. The title remained in Weis-
bein and passed by subrOgatiOn by the appoint
ment OF a receiver, who may now assert it for
the benefit of the general creditors.
?. We do not think that this power Of attorney
authorized Mr.. Lichtenstein TO turn these goods
over to Messrs. Cahin & Co. and Jaffray & Co.,
upon the assumption that they were procured
through the fraud of his principal.
B. We do not think that this power Of attor-
ney authorized Mr.. Lichtenstein TO transfer
considerable portion of the stock of Mr.. Wes-
bein to Cleriin & Co., and Jaffray & Co in set
tiement Of an Indebtedness then existing, the
larger part of which, it may be observed, was
not then due. The appointment of Mr. Lichten-
stein as the attorney of Mr.. Weisbein is de-
clared to have been made for the purpose of
enabling him to conduct and to continue the
business. II authorized we think snch trans
actions as were usual and ordinary in the regu-
lar course Of business and of trade We are of
opinion that the transaction which the general
creditors are now aSsailing was not Of this
character. We do not think that it lay within
the scope of the authority and powers dele
gated, and we do not think it is in execution Of
the intent and purpose declared and manifested
by this power of attorney, but rather in hos
tility thereto.
If it should appear that this transfer was
made when the business Of Weisbein had prac
ticaly ceased 10 be a continuing one, or If it
was made when the business was verginG to
imminent dissolution, and if it was made with
reference thereto and with a view Of giving
preference to these creditors, then we think
that these circumstances would impart addi
tional force to the conclusions nerenDefore an
nOunced and would make taem then more man
ifest.
4 debtor has the right to prefer a creditor,
but the exercise Of this power by an agent can
not be sustained without special authorization
TO that end.