The record-union., 1898-07-01
DOESN'T COVER EVERYTHING
SOME DEBTS NOT WIPED OUT
BY INSOLVENCY.
a Decision by Judge Hart Which
1nterprets the Insolvency
s Law.


Law.
Judge Hart yesterday filed his de-
cision in the case of r. 5. Mcclure
against Charles Heisen involving the
liability of an insolvent debtor under
certain circumstances. The decision
reads:
The plaintiff brought this action
against the defendant for the sum OF
$6o.50 in the Justice Court of the city
of Sacramento. Plaintiff obtained Juos
ment there for the amount sued Tor ana
his costs of suit, and the defendant
took an appeal upon questions OF Dotn
law and fact.
The facts of the case, according 10
stipulated statement of the same hled
in this court, were as follows: On the
23d of September, 1893, the plaintln
executed to the defendant his promis-
sorry note for the sum of S2S, and at
the same time, for the purpose of Sc
curing the payment of said note, plaint-
iff signed in blank a paper in the fol-
lowing words and figures:
.lSS
For value received, / do hereby
grant, bargain, sell, and assign and
transfer unto ............ or Sacra-
mento all my claims on and against
the And | do hereby
constitute and appoint ........
aforesaid my true and lawful attorney,
irrevocable, for me and in my name
and stead, but to his use, to receive
from the ............ all moneys that
may be due ard payable thereon, and
! guarantee the same to be owing me
from said ............ that l have not
sold or assigned the same to any one,
and that l will not receipt for or draw
the same. (Signature) r. S. Mcclure.
That at the time of the signing of
said papers plaintiff was in the EN-
ployment of the Southern Pacific Com
pany, and so remained until some time
in June 1894, when he left the en-
ployment of said company, and for
more than ten months, or therea bouts.
did not work for said company, owing
to the memorable strike of the en-
ployes of said company, after which
he resumed work for it. That on the
23d day of May. 1896, defendant COM
menced an action in the Justices
Court of Sacramento Township for the
principal and interest due upon said
promissory note, and levied an attach
iiltiil OIl lnt earnings Ol lIle
and received on said attachment of the
plaintiffs earnings the sum of So. 10.
That said action is still pending in
said Justices Court That on the 31st
day of October, 1896, plaintiff was, by
the Superior Court of Sacramento
County, adjudged an insolvent, and on
the 9TH day of March, 1897, received
from said court his discharge in insol-
vency. That the claim of defendant
was included in the schedule filed in
said proceeding, and of which the de-
fendant received due notice. That after
said adjudication of insolvency plaintiff
served on defendant the following no.
tice
Sacramento (Cal), Nov. ., 1896.
ITO Charles Heisen: You will take
notice that | have revoked, and hereby
do revoke. all powers of attorney of
whatsoever nature and kind that have
heretofore made to you for the collec-
ton of money or otherwise
And after the plaintiff herein had re-
ceived from the Superior Court his dis
charge in insolvency, to wit, on or
about the ID day of August. 1891 the
defendant filled in the blanks in the
paper hereinbefore set out, as follows:
Sacramento, August 2, 1897.
For value received, l do hereby
grant. bargain, sell. assign and transfer
unto Charles Heisen of Sacramento all
my claims on and against the Southern
Pacific Company for the month of July,
1897. as employee in Car Shop 4 under
LeMay foreman. And l do hereby
constitute and appoint Charles Heisen
aforesaid my true and lawful attorney.
irrevocable, for me and in my name
and stead, but to his use, to receive
from the Southern Pacific Company all
moneys that may be due and payable
thereon, and / guarantee the same to be
owing me from said Southern Pacific
Company: that / have not sold or as
signed the same to any one, and that /
VIII not receipt for or draw the same.
Witness; Martin Devine. (Signatu-e)
r. s. Mcclure
The defendant collected on the above
document from the Southern Pacific
Company the sum of $3.50. which is
the subject of this controversy and
which constitute the personal earning
of plaintiff for the month of July 1897,
as employe of said Southern Pacific
Company. That on August . 1897
there was due and owing said Heisen
from said Mcclure on said promissory
note the sum at least of $3.50. unless
DEFENDANTS claim against the plaintiff
was barred by the Insolvency proceed
ings of said Mcclure hereinbefore men
toned.
There was filed in the Justices Court
before the trial of the action a motion
Tor a change of venue based upon the
affidavit of the defendant. setting forth
that he had reason to believe that he
could not have a fair and impartial
trial before the Justice before whom
the action was brought by reason of
the prejudice and bias of the said
Justice. IT appears from the record
that the Justice, instead of acting upon
the motion of the defendant called in
a Justice from another township under
the authority of Section 105 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, which reads:
"A Justice of the Peace of any town