New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-04-08

~
49, FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THb
rSrRrcAc1Es AND coMPI1cA-
TONS INVOLVED.
rittle president of the Board OF
.,or Yesterday sent TO The Tribune the
So" letter in relation 10 the decision OF
follow" uotch rejecting upon his action as
Jusus Coz the Worthington company;
=. ,ns Editor Of The Tribune: g. ssra,rr re-
TO the appreciate your courtesy IN sendins re-
porter u. 70 make statement regarding the decisiSn
;gnna ge Hatch in the case OF heyneIs erie as
Ein,9 "a and others. and as you Intended printing
,se now aGce2 your saen or read thai de-
Las have seen extracts from Il for the hrst
Soe this morning IN The IT9p S EsR 81 the
count non the theory that II has failed 10 uh9ei
s.onn6 the intrcacies and complications h'o'Veu ia
the case Sse already been twice tried and had once
before oeeH Judgment and in each case was de-
pea, inOT nv favor The first trial was before MT
justice Cqen MONEYS received under these policies
IGN cullen said the basis Of the receiver my
caim was under legal me- S,I 70 Cam }h he made
6u n insurance company during the ne OF w, b-
nss oV and obtained an assignment OF her llsh' u
TIE policies
THE PLAINTIFF APPEALED.
v,o-, the Judgment Of MI Justice Cullen the
,.,,t,0 appealed the Appellate DIVISION ana MI
gs.i.o r4atch then wrote an opinion upholding on
-,ort,s nv right TO the moneys under the
policies ,.,.o -za+c, taken
,-,,, mis- opinion. % reported in APP. DIV page
- There fan De a no recer Of the Worthngon
grrany he claimed title 10 these policies IN SctlHs
hosudg - &c ~ true OF Margaret Warrington"
t no time did either of these parties recognize me
:sst or title OF plaintiff. but each made separatie
Ig5H independent claims 10 the policies ana thelr
az .ssds I'VE can see no reason why eacn
"a not ger, good title to the moneys as against
ne aecoui, OF an error in entering judgment me
,Oo,Iate Division ordered new trial. ms new
was had before Mr.. Justice Gaynor az SpeciaI
E.-n upon me record as had been oelors aie
topelate Division and that learned etoSi;,tes 4,
Died my right 10 the proceeds Of the p0ne1eS bY
laesrn.rance COMPANY Justice Gaynor said: That
me company has failed upon such issue; s a'i5
.H.,e Is no fraud Again. Justice FayloI sdlu
vssn the defendants by the supplemental answer
II the defendant inser Il pis Sn3ings upon re-
mssf he refused 10 find that Joseph j. LlI Ne
sceiver ala act in good faith in asserting MS
lam Az his conclusions Of Law he refused to md
5se po Sis Of Rs policies and heir assignment
10 him from Margarst H4 rar5ersa Judgment in
ny @,ec,saiv The same record as that decided by
,.,,ses cullen and Ciaynor and by the same Ap-
Shat Division il now gives a decision ennreiy
At variance with the first
CREATURE OF THE COURT
as receiver. was simply a creature OF the
co,-- As such 7 claimed the proceeds Tor the
.-s6,to-s % the Worthngton Company. II so hap
,s,sd that Messrs Buckley Dunton & Co. cred
,,or ~ Richard WorthingtOn in whose interest
pavnolss receiver had been appointed. was also
me largest creditor Of the Worthington Company
szd II was az the solicitation OF this creditor that
al mai should frequently consult them regard
ng the affairs Of the recevership did so IN tlls
son 10 compromise received a letter. OF when the
following IS a copy; ..>.,,o- ,s ,sa4
Dear Sir: Having learned OF the compromise you
have arranged with Mrs N0rthlngt on ald MI,
~ a settlement OF matters and litigation between
Wv and hen 2Gqdn 36es ~ e 5 2
have 10 say. creditors. that We approve OF tne
sane and deem II advisable the best interests Of
al he creditors that said arrangement be carried
The supreme Court. upon my application, au-
,bo-izef he compromise agreement. The policies
tnen for the first time came into my hands Before
~ acton 10 determine the ownership thereof and
In thar action an order was made by M Justice
sso9 ~ pay The proCeeds 10 the city Chamber
lain and the City Chamberlain TO pay the same
This order was made April Il, 1886 and It is
claimed that on that gay ms acuon was con- m
nenced by service on the insurance COMPANY. JLP
10 thar time as Mr. Justice Gaynor founc on the
n writing or otherwise 10 either me
Etna Life Insurance Company or any Of the other
defendants.
have any notice or knowledge Of plaintifs claim
TO the policies OF Insurance or 70 the proceeds ana
thus he set AZ rest the charge that months prior
to the commencement of this action we We're con
spring with other parties 10 defraud the plan'lH'
ONE OTHER FINDING.
Let ne add just one other finding made by Jus
tee Gaynor on the last trial viz: That the claim
70 said policies and 10 the proceeds thereof made
by the defendant Joseph J. Little. as receiver Of
Ia Wow hfngfou C'Ornpapv. open and indie
pendent one. based the grounds stated in the
tsid notice 70 the said FEna Life Insurance Com
4 -scs sa 40 and IN the Complain in Ris action
against said F,tna Life Insurance Company, and In
By sI insurance COMPANY and so made and
thereafter consistently man aimed in hostility 70 al
ether claims on the part Of any other person or
Lei ne say. further that the Appellate Division
N the decision reported does not refer 10 any Of
NE findings IN favor OF myself thus quoted 49,.
! desire also 10 add that. having received TINS
Py 0 9Tder Of 6 the C9q Of G0Vf b nSt e
thorty Of an order Of the Supreme Court and the
Justice Cullen second. before this Appellate Dtvi-
tion, and. third. before Mr.. Justice Gaynor-has
ing the payment Of any part Of the proceeds 10 any
ether person. and has affirmed my right as re-
one have been without objection paid 10 me, and
the proceeds distributed
My Legal advisers in this case were James R.
ttioner al the bar and James NJ Fisk. whose Of
nee is a. 10 20 Nassau-st -...-.o ...,..,,oa
by he Court on the Anal accounting made by me
says 5e s ana re e R bs g devoted great deal
o. time 70 the business OF said receivership ana
Of said reesiyersb,p have been Conducted with
great business skill. and his services nave peen
Let say final word that had no per-