The Washington times., 1894-11-07
COURT OF APPEALS CASES
Unusual Number of Opinions Handed
Down by the Justices.
THE DISTRICT is HIT THRICE
Johnston Brothers' Assignment Sustained
The Court Holds That Provisions for Pref
ersnces in an Assignment Are Ineffective,
but the Deed Is Not Inealidatsd.

The court of appeals yesterday rendered
eight decisions. In the cases of George W.
Cissell and the Evening Star Publishing Com
pany against Willis Johnston and his brothers,
trading as Johnston Bros. & Co.. grocers,
Judge Shepard writing the opinion, the
decision of Judge Bradley is affirmed
The plaintiffs sued as creditors to set aside
the assignment made by the Johnstons on
March q last. The appeal was based on the
ground that the assignment, on its face. was
made to defraud the creditors. Their points
indicating this are named.
First, the payments by assignees are to be
made only when creditors will in return re-
lease the claim; second, the deed provides
that any residue, after payment of claims.
shall be returned to the assignors, thus pos
sibly leaving some creditors unpaid, and third,
because the deed does not specifically cover
the entire estate.
The defense answers that all the deeds Of
assignment must be considered together, and
these cover all their property, including in
dividual holdings not exempt. that the pro-
visions In the deed, giving directions az
to release OF claims, etc., il improper are
void under the act of February %. 1888.
Judge Shepard holds that the defense is
right in the claim that this act, which enioins
the fling OF complete schedules of property
and prohibits preferences. cures ali defects
complained of. Under its provisions no
wrong to the creditors can ensue from the
assignment.
The property assigned specifically in the
deed complained OF consists OF the stock. ac-
counts. etc., at No. 729 Seventh street north
west, and Nos. 639 and 641 Louisiana avenue
northwest, together with sixteen horses and
twenty wagons, all valued at $40 900. The liza
bilities are also valued at $40, 900.
In the case of the District of Columbia
against David Z. Haller. Chief Justice Alvey.
writing the decision. affirms the decision Civ
ing Haller damages. Halter stepped in a de-
preston in the sidewalk two feet long. ten
inches wide and seven inches deep on Janu-
ary 4, 1893. The ground was covered with
snow and Ice and he fell and broke his leg.
He alleged that the District had notice OF the
defective condition of the walk and neglected
to repair it, while he had used due care TO
prevent falling.
The appeal was on the point that Haller's
bill said slipped, while his proof was that
he stepped" into the hole. The higher court
holds this variance insufficient to Justify a
reversal. Also the exception to the lower
courts refusal TO hear testimony from an in
spector OF sewers and an inspector OF the
engineering department TO show that the
walk was not in dangerous" condition is
held TO be not well taken.
The coalition of the sidewalk is not mat
ter for scientific or expert determination. the
opinion asserts. Only two points are held to
be essential. These are whether the walk was
bad and whether Haller was duly careful
In j. 5. Lawrence VS.. William A. Ham
mond. the decision il Judge Bradleys court
is reversed. Tho case involves a claim OF
SIC, 900 on promissory note and drafts Law
renee claimed that he owed hammond. but the
amount was only $4,000. a debt in which all
other obligations had been consolidated.
An affidavit offered by Lawrence was not
considered In the court below 10 offer sufi-
cieAt ground for a new trial In this the court
OF appeals holds an error was committed and
the case is remandsd for trial in regular
course.
In James Hughes against Jonas Heyman
Judge Cox's decision is affirmed, Judge Nor
ris writing the opinion. and in District Of Co
lumbia vs. Caroline n. Boiling and George
W. Boiling, and In District Of Columbia
against George W. Boiling, Judge Cox is
again sustained Judge Shepard writing both
opinions. In NJ. ]. Colbert and Nora McGiIl
against Herman Baetgar and Ludwig Meyer
stein, the decision below is affirmed in an
opinion by Judge Morris.
In Annie E. Barbour against David Moore
the lower court is reversed, Judge Shepard
rendering the decision. In Hercules Sanche
VS.. the Electrolebration Company, Judge
Cox's order in the caseis affirmed in an opin-
ion by Judge Morris. and the case is remauded
for further proceedings.
In Werlar L Cbock against Garner the
judgment is reversed by Judge Shepard and
the cause remanded for further proceedings.