The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-04-10

ABSOLUTELY PURE

ton with the John D. Prouty bankruptcy.
John d. Prouty was . Beekman street
business man. Mr.. Risley was one Of his
assienees, and was removed by the United
States district court. The facts about his
connection with tho Prouty estate are
these:
Mr.. Risley was the second or third as
signee. Mr.. Risley was appointed in 1877.
and up to December. 1884, he had done
little to settle the business. Then an APP
plication was made by two creditors IN the
United States district court before Judge
Addison Brown for the removal of the as
signee on the ground that he was Negligent.
The lawyers for the creditors, while not as
serting that Mr.. Rsley was party to the
transaction, said that tho bankrupt or
his attorney was buying up claims and
representing to the creditors shat the
estate was impoverished, while he was neg
lecting opportunities to wind up the bus
mess to advantage. They alleged that it
would be represented to the court by the
assignee that the assets of the estate were
plentiful. but that they could not be real
lied Immediately except at great sacri-
flee. At the same time the creditors were
told that the assets were well nigh value
less.
Mr.. Risley's attorney told the court that
Mr.. Risley was anxious to retire from the
assigneeship and that he was willing that
a successor should he appointed. Judge
Brown signed the order of removal. Then
Mr.. Risley thought there might b some
reflection on him in this removal and he
determined to fight. He refused to give
up his office and appealed the case to the
circuit court, where it was heard by Judge
Wallace, who agreed with Judge Brown.
Judge Wallace's decision is reported in the
Federal Reporter" volume "a, pages IS.
So and 81.
The Judge. to prove the negligence of
the assignee, discussed one instance where
certain securities could have been sold for
$67. 76O which was admitted to be fair
price. The question whether the sale
should be made was referred to a referee,
who reported practically advising the
sale: Judge Wallace said:
'There is no doubt but that this report
would have been confirmed by the court,
but the assignee never applied for confir-
nation. In view of his urgent need of
funds it IS remarkable that he should lie
by supinely and let the favorable oppor-
tunity slip. His conduct cannot be vindi-
Gated by such loose and meager reasons as
he assigns. The result of this ac-
ton on his partI was to transfer the
upon them was contested and
to put it beyond his power to realize
anything from them for an indefinite pc.
Rod of time. There is no aspect
Of this transaction which suggests theory
that is consistent with the exercise
of proper discretion on the part
of the assignee. There bad been no
change in the pressing necessity of the es-
tate, and the assignee in hrs answer at
tempted to explain his failure to realize
anything from the large amount of real
estate which came into his possession by
the allegation that he has been without
funds to clear off the liens and adjust
questions affecting the title. and therefore
had been unable to sell it. Seven years
have elapsed since he was appointed as
signee, and although a large amount Of
assets came into his possession. nothing
b been realised Of consequence. With
out impugning the intention of the as
signee to administer his trust honestly and
with reasonable diligence, it suffices to say
that the creditors have just cause to be
dissatisfied with the dilatory and unwise
course he has pursued. and that the court
below had sufficient grounds to consider
his removal imperative in the interests Of
prudent and energetic management of
the estate"
The creditors who got the lien on the
$67. 760 and tied it up in court were the
lawyers for Prouty.