Evening journal., 1901-07-27
FORBES AFTER
ANOTHER WRIT
Asks Chancellor TO Restrain
Mays From Selling Houses
DESIRED RULE NOT ISSUED
Counsel for Forbes Is Met Before
Chancellor by Opposing LAWYER
and Fight InSueS

uhu AA~hb LhOuto
Martin E. Smith. representing Sam
sel d. Forbes in his suit against salne
A. Smith, formerly sallie A. May, ap-
piled to Chancellor Nicholson in Do
YER this afternoon for a rule on the
defendants to show cause why they
should not be restrained from selling
Forbes properties. in Claymont ana in
Oak streets. ON Tuesday OF next week
William 5. Hilles. representing the
defendants, hearing of the intention Of
Mr.. Smith. appeared before the chan
eellor at the same time. and made
strong opposition 10 the issuance of
the writ Interested counsel wore
nghting for and against the rule al .
.oelock.
The Smith-May- Forbes controversy
began back in 1854 when Forbes exc
CURED IN favor Of George s. Nav a bond
ana warrant as security for a dehf
Whlch subsequently was made secure
Dy a mortgage of the date Of March
IL on that year. This document was
assigned to Sallie A. tMay in .Inlv
1898, who entered judgment on il in
the same year. and had writ of vandi .
toni eXponas issue. nthis writ the urop-
eiues We're advertised for sale In 1900
out The issuance on February 27 Of
that year OF a rule on the defendan1s
10 snow cause why a preliminary in
junction should not issue prevented. At
the argument which followed Mr.
forDes raised the question as to the
right OF Sallie A. Smith to foreclose
on the mortgages before carrying out
the terms Of agreement between Forbes
ana May respecting the debt and mort
gage, the latter being CT the value OF
So,4f0.95. He won the pcint and the
preliminary injunction followed. De-
murrers were filed subsequently and
argument engaged in. Before the court
could answer, the Smiths and Mays filed
a petition for the dissolution OF the
original injunction order. which mo-
ton was refused. The court has thus
far failed to give answer to the argii-
ment on demuITers and the original
suit therefore pends.
Then, as though to force another
sale of the properties to satisfy the
debt, the Smiths-Mays seized the
dwellings on writs of lavari facigs
and on March %. 1901, sold them TO
William F. Nye for the sum Of $4,000
of which amount the purchaser paid
the TO per cent. demanded, as was pro-
vided by the terms of the sale. Learn
ing afterwards that questions affecting
the properties were awaiting settle
ment by Chancery Court. Mr.. Nye re-
fused to pay the balance Of the pur-
chase price, whereupon the sale was
revoked and the properties advertised
for sale on next Tuesday fer the third
time. 1t is this sale that the rule
asked for by Mr.. Smith to-day would
prevent
In his petition for the second in
junction. Mr.. Smith says:
Your complainant is advised and be-
lieves that the pendency Of the suit in
this court, involving the right OF de-
fendant to fcreclose the mortgage pre-
vented said purchaser from paying the
balance CT said purchase money until
such time as the rights Of the litigants
may be determined by this honorable
court and the cloud removed from the
title
Your complainant is advised and be-
lieves that the said sheriff has no riehtl
to demand Of said purchaser mere than
an amount CT said purchase money.
sufficient to pay the principal. intersetl
and costs of the said Judgments upon
which said executions were issued,
and to pay any and all prior liens on
the said real estate sold as aforesaid,
provided that the saidpurchaser makes
satisfactory terms with your complain
ant for the payment OF the residue of
said purchase money. all CT which the
said purchaser and your complainant
are ready to do.
Your orator further represents that
the said sale of real estate on the 30th
day of July, A. D.. 1901, is attemrted
TO be made with the fraudulent intent
and purpose of preventing ycur COM
plainant from further prosecuting hisI
said defense to the collection o. the
said Indebtedness, as the same is con-
tained in said original bill and the
pleas and proceedings Hereunder; that
the Issuance CT alias pluries. levari ia
cias and the seizure and advertisement
of said real estate. together with the
irregular return Of the original writs to
the Superior Court after its adjourn
ment and the entry Of the same on the
records of said court as IL the same had
been made according to law. all oil
which was made and done with the
fraudulent and ineduitable intent and
purpose Of causing your complainant's
real estate to be sold at a sacrifice,
because Of the cloud upon said title by
reason of the pendency Of suit and the
previous sale under original writs; that
a sale of real estate before the rights
OF the parties in the said original cause
are fully and finally determined by this
honorable court. and while the said
William p Nve. the said purchaser atl
said sale under said original wri's.
makes his claim to said real estate by
virtue CT said sale. would work ire
parable injury. damages and costs tol
your said comulainant
your complainant further believes I
and therefore saith that the issuance of
said various writs OF levari facias
from the said Superior Court by thes