The Washington times., 1902-05-28
Bank Questions Jurisdic-
ton of Court Which Ap-
pointed Receiver.
CASE WILL SOON BE ARGUED
Defendants Claim the Court Is Without
Authority in the Premises and to Ask
Dissolution of Receivership and Re-
turn of Property.

An interesting matter will come up
! for hearing in a few days in the Su-
prcme Court of the District, in connec-
tion with what is known as the Ameri-
can Savings Bank receivership suit.
Upon the petition OF Mr.. Nicholas T.
Halter. large stakeholder. last fall the
court appointed receivers to take charge
Of the assets of the bank and wind up its
affairs.
The bank, through its attorney. Mr..
Philip Walker. denies the Jurisdiction Of
the court in the premises. and asks
that the order appointing the receivers
be vacated pnd held for naught. II is
also asked that a rule be issued requir-
ing the receivers. the complainants. and
the intervenors to show cause why the
yetition shall not be granted.
The matter was to have come up for
hearing today. but on account of the
unavoidable absence of Attorney Alex
ander Wolf. enc of the receivers, it was
agreed between counsel that the matter
would 60 over for several days.
Allegations of Petition.
It is stated in the petition filed by the
American Savings BanF that on the
complaint of Nicholas T. Haller the
court on October /. 1901. appointed
Tracy L. Jeffords, Conrad II. Syme,
Charles Francis Carusi, and Alexander
Woii receivers of the defendant ccr-
poration. and vested them with all
rights, title and interest OF the bank
in t'.7 assets of the bank. with power
to bring and prosecute suits to recover
such assets, and with further power TO
wind ~ the affairs of the defendant
corporation.
TIE receivers qualified as required by
the decree AMI subsequently the court,
by its order passed October 80. 1901. ac-
Cepted the resignation OF Mr.. Syme as
such receiver. but without releasing the
obligation of his receiver ship bond.
The receivers took possession of the
assets of the defendant and reported
the nature and amount of same to the
cor-t on October IL, 1901.
with the exception OF the charter.
seal, and cooks of the defendant. and
held by the defendant, the defendant is
informed and believes that all of the
assets have been sold by the receivers.
and that the receivers still have pos
session of the above excepted articles.
That they have, as defendant is in
formed and believes, practically no cash
assets on hand.
Court Without Jurisdiction.
The premises considered, the de-
fendant is advised. and so charges, that
the court was. on the 1st day of October,
1901, without Jurisdiction to pass the
decree on that day passed, appointing
he receivers and authorizing them to
lake possession of all the assets of the
defendant and wind up its affairs: and it
further charges that the possession of
he receivers of the assets is unlawful
Is against the defendant and in viola
ion of it's rights in the premises.
The defendant is Informed and on
belief states that the receivers have
lad prepared and are about to file a GER
ain bill in equity in the court for the
alleged purpose of reaching certain per-
ions supposed by them to be liable for
he debts of the defendant; that such a
iuit would result in long. tedious, and
expensive litigation; that II the appoint
nent OF the receivers was, as charged.
-oid ab initio, the receivers are with
,ut power to file and prosecute said
suit"