The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1890-03-20

Decree of Reference Granted by Judge
uancock-The suit Explained.

Decree of Reference Granted by Judge
nanoock-The suit Explained.
Judge b. A. Hancock has occupied the
bench of the Chancorv Court in the hearing
of the plea tor an injunction in The case of
the state Bank of virginia VS.. $: &. Blanch.
ard. Judge Fi1hueh requested Judge Han
cock 10 DO this 0n account Of the fact that
he had been counsel in the case previous 10
bis reelection as Judge of the Chancefy
Court.
Judge Hancock directed yesterday de-
cree OF reference against :. 4. blanchard DID
tine case. The facts sec forth for this action
are SUBSTANTIALLY as follows.
I'm October. ISL $. Blanchard and =. 4.
blanchard bis father. entered into "a part
nor-hip under the style of r. Blanchard ~
Co. :. G.. Blanchard was % special partner
contributing 100000 90 The capital. iit
business was conducted under that name
until February. lssi. when the partners ai-
tempted tO dissolve the partnership.
ON May iD. is,i. =. q. Blanchard the spe
ciai partner. conveyed "a warehouse anl
Dot ON Virginia street 20 bis brother, Paui
g.. Blanchard. for $4,000. ON the same
dav ho conveyed house and Dot ON Wc-i
Franklin street tO vs.. s.. Forbes. trustee iol
fer Anna ~. Forbes. for the sum of f-5.uN
ON -amodav r. Blanchard made deed oi
assignment of all of his assets iO IlcheIi
and R0undfroe trustees. lrlierung certain
of bis creditors.
This deed was attacked hN the unpt
fefred creditors. who brought SUIT, Odd ihe
United States District Court for ine puilHr
Of setting aside the deed ns fraudulent.
/ These Suits remained pending for sever
years. when compromise was made, r. G.
blanchard and thc preferred creditor, lal
ing d certain amount 90 the unpreiefed
creditors. and the suits were dismissed.
The plaintiffs n the suii n0W pending DOB
The Chancorg Court. instituted that sun iNi
/ fhe purpose ul attacking the deeds maze l
paui g.. Blanchard and vs.. =. Forbes, iru-.
! tee. a- having been made without cOn7'ur
ration and for fho purpose OF deir1ndin- iht
creditors. They also attacked the deed OOH
I the ground ihaf while the property ,iood iu
+ tbe name of s.. e.. Blanchard, pc was
really purchased hy Che firm 90 r. 3lanen.
ARA & 60. They further claim that p. G.
Blanchard. the special partner npi h1f h-
contributed the one hundred thousand ao.'
! lars. as stated iu the certificate ni partner
/ shin. is bound l- general partner.
They also claim that Mrs. Anna w.
Forbes. the daughter OF =. &. Blanchard
/ was dormant partner of The limited part
ncr-hiu Of =. Blanchard a. Co.., and That in.
deed made t0 Der i0r the Franklin street
property uas GOD that account fraudulent
judge Hancock held that Paul @. blanrl
ard wa. $3.50 innocent purchaser for Naiua".'
consideration without notice of amy fraud
and CHAT Doe ifs entitled t0 hold tle Nuein'
street property. and the suit is dismissed 90
90 him.
The suit is dismissed as t0 s. Blanchard
except a- formal party. as tine plainiia
having in the aforesaid compromise Do
leased him from amy personal Liability
The court held chat $. 4. Blanchard. d..
his failure t0 contribute tle 100000. Wa.
/ liable a- general partner but ihat OBJ
settling up the partnership Affairs the prn
ciplr applicable t0 limited parinei-ini
must apply.
The cause was referred i0 one of ihe com
mis.i0nors of the court t0 inquire Wntih'
or NOT Mrs. Anna vs.. Forbes was domln
partner of the iru. and if 800. how mne.
money She contributed t0 the cnpia. ah'
what profits she derived fhonn0m. an'
whether amy part of Oboe caplialor profits Of
/ ihe business was invested Dy der in Old,
] Fraukliu-sfreet property