The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1900-05-16


day settled amicably before Judge Ed
wards, after the jury had been called
and sworn. This ended the protracted
litigation connected with the failure
Of the lace company IN 1897.
At that time a judgment was en-
tered and the property advertised by
the sheriff at the suit of Creighton &
Birch, for about $62,67O Application
was made by Stephen Chappell, a
stockholder and r. A. Blythe, of Phil
adelphia, who was a creditor ito the
extent of $4,000, to open this judg-
ment and set aside the execution on
the ground that Creighton, who was
director of the lace company, had
no right to obtain a preference over
other creditors, and that the judgment
was fraudulent.
This application being refused by
this court, the case was taken to the
Supreme court, by which tribunal the
decree of the court below was re-
versed, and an issue framed, on the
ground that the whole transaction
was presumptively fraudulent. This
issue was to have been tried this week,
but Mr.. Blythe and Mr.. Chappell ac-
cepted the terms of settlement, and
a verdict was taken for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was represented by Mr..
Warren and Welles & Torrey, and the
defendant by A. A. Vosburg and Jo-
seph p. McCullen, esq.,, of Philadel-
phia.
INCORPORATED IN MAY, 1891.
The lace company was incorporated
in May, 1891. with an alleged capital
nf nd In, he ic
was increased to $35O,000 About $780,
900 of the subscriptions was in ma
chinery furnished by the English par
ties who were interested. and, when
in 1898, adverse tariff measures went
through the company found itself in
deep water.
Creighton & Birch. New York job
bers. who were handling the output
of the factory, advanced money from
time to time to operate the factory.
To protect them the company set aside
to them in pledge the machinery and
stock
In 1896 Creighton & Birch were ad-
vised by counsel that the goods so
pledged as long as they remained in
the custody of the company, could be
seized by any other creditor. There
upon the company passed a resolution
authorizing the giving of a $4,000 bond
to the Lackawanna Trust and Safe
Deposit company, as trustee, to pro-
tect Creighton & Birch. On this the
sheriff's sale was had.
Mr. Chappell, as a stockholder, and
Mr.. Blythe, as a creditor. sought to
have this judgment opened. alleging
that the judgment was a fraudulent
preference secured by Creighton &
Birch, by virtue of the fact that one
of their number, Mr.. Creighton, was
director of the company, then an
insolvent and falling concern.
JUDGES DECISION.
Judge Archibald decided it was not
a fraudulent preference and made an
order discharging the rule to open
judgment. An appeal was taken to
the Supreme court and a decision was
there made that the question of the
good faith of the transaction should
so to the jury.
Judge Kelly is engaged in trying
jointly the cases, of +. G. Worden
against Kate Schwartz and others, and
l.. G. WCrden against b. Rosenfeld
and others. Mr.. Worden made plans
for buildings being erected in Throop
for the defendants and also super
vised their construction, charging the
usual per cent. commission. They
refused to pay more than $50 and he
filed a mechanics lien for tht balance.
On this the suit is based.
The defendants claim, in the first
place. that he agreed to do the work
for $50, and in the second place, that
the mechanics lien must fall by rea-
son of the fact that the contract with
the builder guaranteed against liens,
and that at all events an architect
can not file a lien for work done in
drawing plans. The defense contend
that there was no supervising con-
tracted for or done. r. A. Zimmerman
represents the plaintiff. The defen-
dants' attorneys are f. c. Newcomb
and George S. Horn.
In the case of Winans & Son against
j, f. McCawley & Bros, a verdict
was entered for the plaintiff in the
sum Of 1914.
SLANDER SUIT.
In the slander suit of Otto d. Myers
against his former partner, w. d.
by which the suit was withdrawn
upon the payment of $50 by the defen-
dant to the plaintiff.
The jury in the case of John Be-
more & Son against Ferdinando Ari-
goni returned a verdict of $1l333 in
favor of the plaintiff.
A verdict of $35.47 for the plaintiff
was returned in the case OF Frank H..
N,1 IL.
BY agreement, a verdict of $41 for
the plaintiff was entered in the case
of o. NJ. Fletcher against M. L. Wor-
dan