The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-09-26


and the estates of 3. II. Throop, Albert
Beardsley and G. A. Jessup, deceased,
came to an abrupt termination yester-
day before Judge Archibald. The law
in the matter of contracts, which seals
the mouth of one interested party when
the other interested party is dead, is
responsible therefor.
1t is one of the city bank cases G..
A. Jessup was cashier and vice-presl-
dent The four defendants were his
sureties as cashier in the sum of $25, ,OOO
They paid this amount and more, AMI
after many trials it was decided before
Judge Albright last year that they had
fully discharged their obligation.
The present suit is an effort to COL
lect an indebtedness of $40, 900 alleged
to be resting against Jessup as vice.
president. The plaintiff alleges that
these same parties were on Jessup's
bond as vice-president. The bond is
lost. but they proposed to prove that it
existed, by parole testimony and the
corroboratng circumstance that the
minutes of the bank contained a clause
directing Mr.. Jessup to give a bond as
vice president
The defense was that there is no such
indebtedness; that while the directors
ordered bond to be given, the order
was never complied with. In substan-
tiation of this there are depositions by
the deceased Jessup that he never gave
such bond and by Throop and Boards
ley that they never signed such a bond
and testimony to the same effect by W.
II. Jessup, the sole surviving party to
the alleged transaction.
f.. Merrifield, one of the stockholders
of the bank, and likewise a large cred
itorwas the party by whom the plaintiff
proposed to prove the existence of the
bond that was lost. In anticipation Of
the law above mentioned operating
against his competency, he disposed of
his claims recently by assignment to
Henry Armbrust, another creditor
The defense maintained that this did
not qualify him and Judge Archibald
sustained the contention, ruling that
Mr. Merrifields disposition of his claim
to Mr.. Armbrust, while not done in bad
faith was "a colorado assignment"
and that as a stockholder of the bank
was responsible for it's debts to twice
the amount of his stock. Mr. Merrifield
was interested in collecting as much as
possible from the defendants. Upon
this ruling the defense claimed and was
awarded a verdict.
The benefit of an exception and rule
for a new trial was allowed the plain
till
The attorneys for the plaintiff were
s. Il. Price and G.. II. Weles, of Welles
& Torrey.
Major Everett Warren and Hon. c.
p. O'Malley, of Willard, Warren &
Knapp, and James II. Torrey. of Welles
& Torrey, represented the defence.
Messrs. Welles & Torrey were in the
case before forming their partnership.
EX-Judge Jessup also sat with the de-
PENDANTS attorneys.
The case of David T. Williams
against Agnes ]. Carey to recover 1850
alleged to be owing on a note is on
trial before Judge Edwards. Another
mote" case, the Traders bank against
Joseph f. Hughes was called before
Judge Archibald at the close of the City
bank case.
The following cases were settled:
| James Bower against Elk Hill Coal
company; Chaplin & Co. against Quack-
enbush & Co.; A. c. Schmidt e. Co.
against David Richards, ct al; David
E. Nichols against Scranton Traction
company; Charles w. Hilgert against
John Killian; James Campbell against
city of Carbondale.
The following cases were continued:
| Peter Cerini against Roche & Fadden;
Mary a. Pelton against l. C. Cobb
Patrick Connor against the Scranton
Traction company; Mary Timmons
against the city of Carbondale; Trad
ers' National bank against w. H.
Stanton; l.. r. Evans against city OF
! Scranton and others: Giblin & Co.
against c. n. Gerbig; Jane Reap
against the City of Scranton: Bridget
Cooney and others against Catherine
| Carney.