Daily tobacco leaf-chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1890-1895, 1891-12-25
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN,
Several Decisions by the Supreme CouIts
OF Local Interest.

ofLo1al Interest.
The Supreme court handed down
the following opinions yesterday in
>ase7 carried up from this county;
Adams, Gill & Co. VS.. John
Adams and d. B. Smith. This was
bill to recover advances on a lot Of
tobacco sold by Adams, Gill & Co..
The facts show that Smith entered
INTO coutract to buy at fixed
price. Adams, Gill & Co. paid for
this tobacco on lis arrival at their
warehouse and sold the same at q
loss, and it is now sought by them to
recover from Adams and Smith the
difference between the price paid and
the price at which they sold the to-
bacco. The question is, whether the
tobacco was bought of Smith indie
pendently, or whether he was the
agent of Adams, Gill d Co. The
Chancellor found in favor of COM
plainants, and this finding is con-
tirmed to that extent. Smith, how
ever, made another defense. Under
the act of 1871 warehousemen are
prohibited from buying tobacco
stored in their warehouses. John
Adams, member of defendants
firm, bought half interest in this
tobacco from Smith, and it is insisted
that this was contrary to the prohib-
tory law, and this is, therefore, a
case to recover money under a viola
ton of the law aud it cannot be en-
tertained by the count.
The Supreme court held that the
Chancellor was right in holding that
this case did not come within the
meaning of the statute, as at the
time Adams became interested the
tobacco was not in his warehouse.
The decree of the Chancellor was af-
firmed.
g. L. Pitt, administrator, VS.. Mrs.
A. h, Pool, This was a bill filed in
the Montgomery County Chancery
Court to re oh certain real tate.
The court held that in suit by an
administrator against the Vendce of
his intestate 20 set aside conveyance
made by the intc0late, on the ground
that it YVES fraudulent as to creditors,
aud that the tate of into state is in
solvent, it is c1seutial that the adj
minis ator establish by proof that
debts existed at the date of the con-
veyance, and that his allegation es-
tablished by his own evidence that
claims had been filed with him to a
given amount, which so far as he
hnew were correct, were insufficient.
The dec"c was reversed and the bill
dismissed.
The Northern Bank of Tennessee
VS.. Sawyer, Wallace & Co. This liti-
cation involves the question of pri-
ority of liens upon certain funds in
the Chancery court of Montgomery
county. Sawyer, Wallace & Co., a
New York firm, had Judgment
against Beaumont for $4,000. Saw
yer, Wallace q Co. made an assign
ment, which under the laws of New
York wss sufficient to pass all assets.
The Northern Bank filed a bill to re.
cover debt of 5000 due by Sawyer,
Wallace & Co. and sought to attach
this judgment. Execution was
levied on the fifth day of the month
he assignment had been made on
the tou' tn. 1t was insisted that the
assignment carried this debt and it
was not subject to attachment under
the laws of Tennessee. The Chancel-
Tor held that complainants' decree
was superior and gave decree in
their favor.
1t is a well deined rule of law
that an assignment which is valid in
one State is valid in all other States,
unless it contravenes some statute or
policy o. other States.
The Court was of opinion that the
Chancellor was right in his decision
and held that Tennessee furnishes an
exception 10 the rule, because it is
the law here that debtor must have
notice of a transfer. The proof
showed that no such notice was given
ar this case came within the ex-
ception and majority of the court
were of opinion that the decree
should be affirmed. Judge Snod-
grass dissented.