Delaware gazette and state journal., 1895-10-03
RELIANCE COMPANY WINS.
The Rule Asking for a Mandamus to
Compel the Reinstatement OF Joseph
Cash Dismissed.

In superior court Wednesday after
noon Robert G. Harman and II. Greeley
Knowles, representing George 9. Robin
son and Albert N. Robinson, trustees
for Mrs. Martha Boyd, made applica-
tion for the payment of certain4money
out of court. James Morrow, the de-
fendant, was represented by Harry
Emmons. The plaintiffs plea sets
forth that Mrs Boyd left SIS, 600 by
will, and that Albert n and G. G.
Robinson loaned this $1,000 trust
money to james Morrow. The trustees
claim that in 1878 a mortgage was
satisfied, with the understanding that
Mr.. Morrow should pay off two mort
cages held against the Robinsons, one
for 81, 600 and the other for 1920, held
by the Workingmen' Loan, SO that the
Robinsons could give Mrs. Boyd a
So. 600 mortgage on their property,
which would then be first mortgage.
Mr.. Morrow was then to give the
Robinsons, as trustees, 81, QUO mort
gage on one of his properties, thus
securing Mrs. Boyd. The Robinsons
did their part, but the plea claims
that Mr.. Morrow failed to do his.
On March 4th, 1878, the secretary Of
the Workingmen 8 Loan Association
gave a receipt for the money to Mr..
Morrow. Two years later he entered
satisfaction on the back of the mort
gage and gave it to the Robinsons. In
1884 the loan association assigned the
mortgage to Mr.. Morrow. When the
property was sold there were three
mortgages on it. The first was paid
without dispute. The contention is
over the Workingmen's Loan mortgage,
which is claimed by Mr.. Morrow under
the assignment of 1884, and Mrs Boyd
because of the satisfaction of 1880.
Several witnesses were called and testi-
fled, and the hearing was still in
progress when court adjourned until
10 O'Clock Thursday morning.
When court convened on Thursday
the case of Elihu Jefferson Va David
Lemon & Co., which has hung since
1878, was dismissed, on motion of F..
II. Hoffecker, attorney for plaintiff.
The Boyd case was next resumed
Mrs. Martha Boyd was the first wit
ness Mr.. Knowles desired to use her
transactions with the trustees as a
and them. The testimony was objected
to by Mr.. Emmons and was not allowed,
and Mrs. Boyd left the stand. w. N.
about two years ago, while in the
office of George G. Maris, they heard
Mr.. Maris say that if the satisfaction
was written on the back of the mort
gage he must have received authority
to do it.
Mr.. Maris, on being recalled, stated
that he might have made the state
ment to MIR. Almond within the last
few days, but he did not have any re-
collection as to whether a letter was
presented to him or not. He believed
| that he had no letter from Mr.. Nor
row at the time.
Mr.. Morrow was recalled also. He
said that he made no agreement to
pay off the other mortgage. He also
| stated that he never wrote letter to
Maris or Robinson authorizing the
satisfaction of the mortgage. In cross
examination he denied most of the i'm.
plications made by MIR. Knowles.
Chief Justice Lore, who was called
by Mr.. Emmons, testified to Il conver-
sation he had with trustee relative
to disposition of trust funds. He knew
| nothing about the loan association
mortgage.
MIR. Knowles asked for a jury of in
QUESTION, which was granted. con
tinuanee was made to the November
| term, when there will be a trial before
a jury.
The mandamus case of Joseph Cash
| VS.. the Reliance Fire Co. was next
taken up Mr.. Cash asks to be rein
stated as member of the copmany.
He is represented by Josiah Marvel and
William S. Hilles, and United States
District Attorney Vandegrift and ex.
Attorney General Biggs appeared fol
the company.
Mr.. Vandogrift opened by stating
that in order for the superior court tc
have jurisdiction the petition for man
| damus must show that there is ATTACHED
to the franchise of which Mr.. Cash has
been deprived some pecuniaIy emolu
ments. Ii such could not be shown, hi
claimed, it would be case for proceed
ings in equity. A number Of authori
ties were referred to, and Mr. Vande-
grift argued on the law in the case.
He asked for dismissal of the appli
cation for writ on the ground tha
tho petition contained nothing to sh ov
that the petitioner would suffer pc
| cuniary loss.
Mr.. Hilles followed. He argued tina
the case is proper one for the court,
and cited authorities on the point.
The speaker contended that the cour
could pass on all cases in which tht
franchise of person is at stake, re-
gardless of whether any pecuniary emo
| luments are attached thereto. He
argued that the petitioner was expelled
without notice, and the law requires
that notice shall be given in all sucl
cases. lie also contended that no prop
| rt. nil iG nflt o ftatN
chise is thing of value, and til,
proper way to have it restored is by man
damus. Mr.. Hilles went back for au
thority to the time when Adam ate o
the forbidden fruit in the Garden o
Eden. He said that before God passed
Judgment he gave Adam an opportunit.
to make his defence. Mr.. Hilles salt
as a matter of fact The petitioner hell
that he was expelled without notice
but it made no difference to him hov
the company's bylaws read, he he'll
that such expulsion was Illegal.
Mr.. Vandegrift followed Mr.. Hilles
He asserted that if the bylaws, s
stated member could be eXpellel
without notice. He stated that tn
papers in the case would have to shoN
its merits, as to whether it could com
before the superior court. When Nj
Vandegrift concluded adjournment c
the case was made until 8 o'clock Fri
day morning, when decision on the me
tion will be given.
Court adjourned at 1.20 until 81
o'clock.
A short session of the superior eour
was held Thursday afternoon, at whic
the only business was an order by tn
court that all rules and commission
unreported should be continued unit