The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-07-20
BEFORE JUDGE KNOWLES.
The Injunction Asked by Thaddeus Schey
of Anaconda Denied.
Special Dispatch to the Standard.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena, July 19.-Judge Knowles to-
day denied the injunction asked by
Thaddeus Schey of Anaconda to re-
strain F. C.. Wills of that city from
seeking to force the collection of a
note after he, Schey had been adjudg-
ed bankrupt. The case was de-
scribed in Tuesdays Standard. Thad-
deus Nous and Thaddeus Schey part
ners, went into bankruptcy on Sept.
Is last and their affairs have since
been in charge of Referee Campbell.
f. G. Wills, an accommodation in
dorser on note for 1915, claims that
since they went into bankruptcy Schey
paid $50 on the note, and promised to
pay the balance. Although the note
was included in the bankrupts' liabil-
tiles, Wills claims the subsequent pay
ment made it a proclaim. He OBJ
tanned judgment in the police court on
Schey's wages. Schey applied for an
injunction to restrain Wills from in
terfering with the affairs of a bank
rupt, whose property was in course of
adjudication. 1t appears that Schey
pleaded discharge from bankruptcy
when in fact his affairs were still in
the hands of the referee. Judge
Knowles claims Schey could not now
come into court and plead exemption.
In ruling on the case Judge Knowles
said in part:
1T is the rule that the party seeking
exemption from his debts under the
bankruptcy proceedings should specify
and plead the same. The said Schey
pleaded a discharge from bankruptcy
which was not true. The said Schey
cannot now come into court in this
proceeding and claim any exemption
on account of such adjudication in
bankruptcy. He should have proper
ly pleaded and proved this adjudca-
ton. The action in the police court
Of Anaconda should be attacked col
laterally. 1t is evident that the court
found that the said Schey had made
sufficient promise to pay the note sued
on to justify judgment against him.
and that this promise was made after
he was adjudged a bankrupt, a new
promise. Evidence cannot be intro
duced in this court to show that no
such promise was made. The judy
ment against Schey was made on ac-
count of the new promise and this
new promise waived the exemption
which the said Schey might have main
tanned on account of the adjudication
in bankruptcy. The new promise
could not have been made the basis
of any claim in the bankruptcy court
1t created an obligation subsequent to
the adjudication in bankruptcy. With
out this promise the petitioner, Schey
would have been entitled to the in
junction prayed for but, under the
facts presented the court can give no
relief: The application for an injunc-
ton is denied"
The case attracted some attention,
as 1t Is the first of the kind that has
arisen under the new bankruptcy laws,
Judge Knowles to-day signed a de-
cree of foreclosure and sale in the
case of Asa Bruce Bement VS.. the
bloomington Mining company of Gran
tie county to enforce the collection of
SS,6SS and directed that Henry N.
Blake. special master. sell the proper
~ OF the company at public auction.
w. ii. Henry of Butte was TODAY
adjudged a bankrupt. He has liabili-
ties of $1,400 and assets Of nearly the
same amount, consisting of a house
hold right, which he claims Is ex-
empt.
Tomorrow the trial by jury of the
case of the st. Louis Mining and Mill
ing company VS.. the Montana Mining
company drum Lummon), an impor-
tant piece of mining litigation. will
be commenced. Ex-senator Brown is
among the counsel for the st. Louis.