Morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven [Conn.]) 1848-1894, 1893-06-08
DEPosIToRs WILL GET NOTHING

DEPOsITORs WILL GET NOTHING
The Decision of the supreme Court
q Complete Victory for the SPecula-
tors on Margins In the Late Bunneu
& Scranton Failure-The Estate VIII
Soon be Settled up.
The supreme court yesterday handed
down its decision on the question of law
which arose in the affairs of the Bunneu &
Scranton estate which were reserved by
mutual consent for the supreme court to
decide upon.
The questions were brought up In Q
series of suits against Ezekiel &. Stod<
dard, trustee of the insolvent estate, by
those customers of the firm who bought
stocks on margin. These customers claimed
that the money derived from the sale of
such stocks should be turned over to them
and not made part of the funds OF the
insolvent estate.
The opinion, which ID written by Judge
Prentice and fully concurred In by Chief
Justics Andrews and Judge Fenn, is COM
plete victory for the marginal spectators.
1t declares them preferred creditors and
asserts that their claims have precedence
over any Others The general creditors or
depositors are thus left decidedly out IN
| the cold. There is nothing In the estate
| for them.
When it came to settling up the affairs
| of the concern it was found that the only
| actual assets were these stocks which had
been actually purchased and for which
hard cash had been put in by the purchas-
| ers
| There ia probably about 100000 in the
hands of the trustee. The amount OF
money actually placed in the hands OF
Bunnell & Scranton to buy stocks on COM
mission was about SIS, 900. The expenses
of the settling of this estate will be large
and must be taken from the $50, 900 In the
trustees hands. So that the plaintiffs In
the case will be lucky If they recover be-
tween 40 and so per cent.of what they put
in. For the general creditors or deposit
ors there will be nothing, as before init
mated.
A minute in the hande of Reporter
Hooker, of the supreme court, says that
Judge Torrance concurs in the opinion
Except as to a certain point" and Judge
Carpenter wholly dissents from the opin'
ion. It Is understood that he will file bis
| dissenting opinion soon, and it may be
interesting reading.
Judge Prentice In his decision says:
We are of the opinion that both reason
and authority support the proposition thai
the relation of pledgor and Pledge existed
between the plaintiffs and Bunnell s
Scranton at the time of the lstter's in
solvency, as respects the stocks and seen
rites which they were carrying for thu
former, or of their orders.
: From this proposition 1t follows that tn
5 plaintiffs, as pledgors of the stocks ant
l securities 60 carried, are entitled to redeem
. | them. The assignment of Bunneu
j Scranton does not interfere with the exer
= else of this right. The title to the pledges
property was never in the insolvents
!, The plaintiffs have from the first been 1t
0 general owners. The insolvents had onl
q special property in it.
a The situation must be regarded as it 81
listed when the assignment was made. Tn
81 | situation discloses blocks of stock ident
}; fed as held and carried under pledges fo
t more than one person. None of the stoc
4 4 belongs to Bunnell & Scranton. 1t is nc
h possible to show to whom It, share b
2 share, does belong. Tie shares are a
= alike. We think the Identification Ia su
!; fieient to justify aud that equity require
Q that the stock be divided pro rata anon
u all those for whom Bunnell & Scranto
were hidden to carry such stock. Tn
course fully protects the creditors of Bul
70 nell & Scranton. No stock ia taken fro
: the assets of the firm to which 1t was ev'
Il by any possibility entitled. 1t gives tt
pledgors their rights, as far as may bs, an
81 in an equitable manner.
r We therefore advise that the plaintiff
ts are entitled to redeem and possess then
, selves of such stocks and securities as Col
le formally to the foregoing principles, thu
3, may be able to thus reasonably identify
!, y being carried for them.
at The claim of tbs plaintiff, Hooker, pr
u a the time of the assignment Bunnell
Il, Scranton were carrying no stock or secul
ties by them on his orders. He had, ho'
ever, previously dealt through them upt
margins, and was at the time, as the resu
% of such dealings, indebted to them.
No As security for his margins he had fro
20 time to time deposited with them certa
% stocks of his own. All of these stoc
Bunnell & Scranton had hypothecsted f
~ these debts.
Bunnell & Scranton's action in hypoth
*, eating Rockers stocks must be regard
:. as wrongful The plaintiffs equity Ia 9
perior to that of the owners of the 9th
stocks, and it is his right to have an app
o. | cation of their proceeds to discharge I
pledge, before he shall be called upon
I'd bear burden imposed upon his proper
D by the wrongful acts of his bailee.
i'' The opinion alec decides that the plat
ng tiff, Mrs. TrowbrIdge, Administrative up
the estate OF Peggy Simpson, has the rig
y to recover two bonds registered in the q
ng ceased's name, which were sold by Blu
ar- nell & Scranton's New York agents,
before she received the money the fl
failed.
WHO THE PLAINTIFFS ARE.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Paul
Skiff, who deposited $1,000 in cash +
g. the purchase of 500 shares of Weste
Union; Albert n. Kellam, who deposit
ms 81, 500 to buy 100 shares of Richmond a.
West Point Terminal railroad and Wal
house company; Charles N. Holcomb, W
deposited IS, 500 to buy 100 shares of
be Y, Lake Erie and Western; Charles
81 Coe, who deposited 5000 to purchase
o- shares of Pacific Mail; Frank W. Guio
OF who deposited 81 200 to purchase /
10 shares of Wisconsin Central Railroad CO..
pany; John B. Judson, who depoeited S.
u to purchase 80 shares of Texas q
Id Pacific; William b. Barnes, $3.50
re to purchase 100 shares of RIchmo
Sc and West Point Terminal railroad a
US Warehouse Co., J. G. Rawson, who dept
6, tied So, 400 to buy 100 shares of Richmo
hs and West Point Terminal; Eliza n. Smit
ns | who deposited various sums for the PIT
40 chase of silver and stocks. Theodore
Woolsey, who deposited SIS, $50. 81 for t
purchase of stocks and never obtained t
said stocks and bonds; DR.. Robert Graz
en- who has claim for STA 80; John
ug Sloan, who deposited S1,317.14 to pit
ly chase 100 shares of Cleveland, Cincinns
he Chicago and st. Louis railroad; Thorn
~ Hooker, who claims the proceeds of sto
> sold by Bunnell & Scranton. 9th
plaintiffs are John 8 Bradley, A.
Bromm, Adolph Sachs, F. W. Tohls, E.
Dr. Terrill, Jacob Brosohart, Lucy P. Tro
lis bridge, w. h. Nettleton, James g. Ker
n nI gan, Robert Crane.
10
&c Funeral of Albert A. Holt.
u, ", The fun raj of Albert Abernethy Ho
in, one of the victims of the drowning &C,
esr dent of several Sundays since and who
IN body was recovered Monday afternoo
took place from his late residence,