The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1893-12-18
T8B NoHTNEE ron TIE SUPREME
BENCH
Nr. winisrs n. HornbIower's Record - che
FEDERAL Courts

blower as attorney for Burnap assignee In
bankruptcy. to dismiss an appeal OF Fellows,
creditor. from the District Court 10 the Cir
cult Court The motion was based on the fact
that certain appeal paper. which was sctu-
ally filed on June 30 1875. appeared on its
back to have been filed two days earlier. and
upon the fact that certain other appeal paper.
which had to be filed within ten days after the
nrst. was not lled till July o. 1875. This was
In time. counting from the true date. but not
In time counting from the marked date Of Al.
Ing the first paper Judge Johnson uyerruled
Mr. Hornblower's motion.
stcoSD CAsE-h ~ Dunahaut is Blstchford 20. 1873.
This was a motion which involved three
small questions arising under the Bankrupt
law then in force. Chief Justice Waite. hold
ing the Circuit Court. decided in favor OF Mr..
Hornblower's motion.
TnIRp CAsE-Harding against crosby II Blstchford
94s 1879
This was a bill in equity. filed by Mr. Horn
blower. as attorney for an assignee in bank
ruptcy. to set aside n previous assignment Of
the bankrupt, made for the benefit OF his cred-
itors under the State law within three months
before the filing OF the petition in bankruptcy.
Judge Wheeler decided for Mr.. Horrible ers
| client. as OF course he would do. under the
BANKRUPT law then in force
| FoURrH CAsE-wAshburn A Moen Manufacturing
Company against Wilson, ~ Fed. Rep. 2o3. 1884
This was bill in equity filed by Mr.. Horn
blower as attorney for the manufacturing
| company for an Injunction to restrain the de-
| fendant from using q machine invented and
patented by himself There was an outstand-
Ing contract between the parties: but Judge
Wheeler decided that the defendant had never
parted with his patented right to use hla ma
| chine as he was using It, and therefore he de-
| Cideu against MIR. Horn bloyvar'a nil
FTru CI"-uayles against Marine National Bank.
"a Fed Rep. lUI 1885
This was motion made by MIR. Hornblower.
as attorney for the plaintiff, to remand to the
state Court an action which had been removed
by the defendant TO the Federal Court. Mr..
HornbIowor argued that although the only
statement OF right OF action yet filed by him
showed that 1t arose under a United States
law. that statement was made for temporary
purpose only. and might be change later to
cause OF action entirely different. and not arls-
Ing under United States law, Judge Wheeler
overruled that argument. and denied Mr..
Hornblower's motion.
sISrn cAsE-lEtns National Bank against Manhattan
Life Insurance Company. "a Fed. Rep. 7oe 1886.
This was q bill in equity fled by Mr..
Hornulower as attorney for the bank, to
get aside an assignment OF Q life in
surance policy. Tho policy had originally
been made payable to the executors. admin
istrators. or assigDees Of the husband In
sured. and the assignment had been made
to his wife, for a merely nominal pecuuiary
consideration. shortly before his death. for
the purpose OF placing the proceeds Of the
policy beyond the reach OF creditors. Judge
Wheeler. OF course. decided In favor OF MIR.
Hornblower.
SEVENTH cAsE.-.Etna National Bank against United
States Life Insurance Fad Ran
This was a case IN which Mr.. Hornhlower.
ms attorney for tho plaintiff sought to recover
for the benefit Of creditors the amount OF q
lie Insurance policy on ths life OF a husband,
which policy was originally made for the benz
ent OF the vile. The argument OF Mr.. Horn
blower WAS that the premiums had been paid
out OF the money OF the husband. in fraud OF
the right Of the creditors to receive oil that
money In payment OF debts to them. Judge
Wheeler decided that while this fact might |
give the creditors right to recover from the |
proceeds of the policy the amount of tho pre-
miums. 1t did not give them any right to re-
cover the entire proceeds OF the policy
ElGHTu C,sE.-Fuer against Metropolitan Life Insur
ance Company. 81 Fed Rep. 1874 1850
In this case. Mr.. Hornblower, for the de- |
PENDANT. denied the jurisdiction OF the Federal |
Court on the ground that. though the suit was |
based on claim for Sl.8l8. the defendant
admitted 81 .23l OF the sum to be due, and
contended that tho remaining 1897, being less
than the jurisdictlonal $780, was the only
amount in controversy" within the meaning
OF the Federal statutes In everything Mr..
Hornblower. Judge Coke. in speaking Of Mr..
construction OF the statute. said;
II this be the true construction. the stronger
the plaintiff makes his case. the greater
danger lie will incur OF being turned out OF
court II for instance on the trial. he proves
his case so conclusively that the defendant
can orcr nothing In reply. and in open court
comedies the Justice OF tho plaintiffs demand,
it will be tho duty OF the Court at that very
TO dismiss the cause. for the reason
that there is nothing in controversy between
the parties This was not the intention OF the
lawmakers"
NHIu CAsE-cOnnOr against Long. Io4 Q. s.. 22o
1881.
This was originally an action brought By
Mr. Hornblower as attorney for Long an as
signee In bankruptcy. against Conner the
sheriff OF the city and county Of New York. to
recover the value Of certain perishable goods
u the bankrupt which he had sold under an
order OF the supreme Court Of New York in an
Attachment suit before the adjudication In
bankruptcy. but after the filing OF the petition |
IN bankruptcy In Massachusetts Common had
no knowledge or notice Of that petition until
ifter he sold the goods and paid their proceeds
% the attorney for the plaintiff in the attach
nent suit. The supreme Court unanimously
decided against Mr.. Hornblower's action.
TESTH CAsE-lAwrenes Anufacturng Co. against
tennessee Manufacturing Co. 1873 l. =, 1917. 1891
This was a trade mark case In which Mr..
Hornblower for the complainant sought to
sustain an exclusive right to mark the letters
! l. on cotton shseting. The Supreme Court
decided against him on the ground that those
etters were originally adopted. and had
IlwAys been used to indicate merely the quail I
ty OF the sheetinC. Speaking for the Court,
jhiei Justice Fuller said: Nothing is better
ettled than that an exclusive right to the use
4 words. letters. or symbols to indicate merely
he quality OF the goods to which they are
'fixsd cannot be acquired"
ELEvEHrH CAsE-LAwrsncs Manufacturing Co GRAin.,
AHssyills Cotton hnlA l3s L, s. b52. 1891
This case differed from the tenth casa In nm. |