Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-04-11
IDAHO WARRANTS
IN NEW YORK CITY
Given to Secure the Payment Of
PromissOry Note
WERE PROPERLY ATTACHED
supreme Court Decision In Case OF
Thum " The chase National
Bank Ct 81.

The supreme court handed down an
opinion today In The case OF C.. ID. Thum.
receiver of C. Bunting & Go, bankers,
o Utah corporation doing business in
Idaho. appellants VS. james Pmsree
The Chase National bank Of New York
city. First National Bank OF ogden
and the ogden savings bank, Affirming
judgment OF the court below.
This cause was brought in the Third
district court 10 redeem Sl8lojbL n
county warrants Of the counties of
Bingham and Fremont. idaho, and OBJ
tain possession Of warrants upon pay
ing that amount. and for an accounting
as TO any amount that had been paid
thereon and Judgment therefor
The complaint alleges that the war
rants We're I'm the hands of the defend
ants as security for an indebtedness OF
&. Bunting q Co.. upon which there
was "a balance due of 1850. 10 was
also alleged that the plaintiff was the
successor of G.. Bunting q Co. being It's
receiver. that he had rendered the
amount due and demanded the war
rants which We're refused. The case was
tried before Judge Hi'ts, who found mat
plaintiff had no Interest In the warrants
ana accordingly gave judgment for the
defendants
The record IN the case shows that a
receiver was appointed for o. Bunting
& Co.. I'm Idaho, but not 10 New 1ork,
and that such appointment was not
made in Utah until long after the war
lao. D.. Ca
City Under the authorities the SUI
preme court holds that when a receiver
has been appointed. or property has
been transferred by operation Of law,
such receiver has no extra territorial
| Jurisdiction over property, except that
which ls found within the territorial
| limits OF the State wherein he was APP
pointed "Such transfers. says the
court have no force upon property
| outside of such State where they are
made. and IL viii DE administered for
/ the benefit OF creditors and others in
/ terested therein by courts OF that state
| where 1t Is found
/ The principal question for decision,
| the court found was were the county
warrants issued by. and showing in
! debtcdncss OF Bingham and Fremont
/ counties Idaho owned By c. Bunting
| e. CO.. and by II transferred 20 and
/ actually held by the Chase National
| Bank of New York city as a pledge TO
/ secure the payment OF the note Of c..
Bunting d Co., liable 20 attachment ~
/ the courts of New York by the credi-
tors OF Bunting & Co.. who also resided
/ In New York. without personal service
/ OF summons on the counties issuing the
| warrants and obligated 20 pay the
| same?' The warrants being property
In which Bunting & Co. had an inter-
est. and being IN the possession OF the
New York bank. subject 70 lien the
court holds they had a situs IN New
York and were subject 20 the same
1 rules as other personal property OF Ike
character. and were liable TO seizure
and sale under the writ issued i'm this
case. The contention that the summons
served on G. Bunting & CO., and the
counties named and that therefore the
court obtained no jurisdiction is held
20 bc untenable. The court does not
deem II necessary TO discuss the find
ings of Judge Hiles, and adds The
judgment rs correct
The opinion was delivered by Justice
Miner. Chief Justice Bartch and Justice
Baskin concurring.