The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-10-29
GREEN AND GAYNOR

l toontinued from Page One.) Court in the case of Charles A. Goss receiver and trustee. plaintiff in error vs. o. M. Carter, defendant in error on appeal from Houston. in the South, | ern District of Texas. | The court gave out an exhaustive | opinion by Judge Shelby, upholding thu rights of the receiver to sue and there l by reversing and remanding the cass | to the lower court for a new trial l This was q proceedings in which l Goss, a citizen of Nebraska. brought | action against O. Ms~ Carter of Texas 1 The plaintiff sued as receiver and trus- tee of the American Loan and Trusi Company, a bank of Nebraska. msolv- ent since 1894.
 The receiver sought to recover the amount of an assessment of 25.9 per cent. levied by the District Court of l the Fourth Judicial District of Nebras- ka upon $f01,so0 of stock alleged tc have been held by Carter in the de- funct bank.
 In the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Texas. where the suit was brought. general demurrer with specific exceptions to the petition was sustained. thereby end- ing the suit fin that tribunal adversely to the petitioner. Goss appealed to the Appellate Court.
 Tie opinion handed down yesterday by the Court of Appeals shows that these three questions are involved:
 First-Has the plaintiff as a receiver appointed in Nebraska the right to sue in Texas?
 Seeond-Is the defendant subject to suit on the decree of the Nebraska Court?
 Third--Is the right of action barred by the Texas statute of Limitations of four years?
 All of these questions the court de- cided afirmatively. fully explaining the reason for each.
 The opinion concludes with this par agraph: -a. is reversed and the case is remanded, with instructions to overrule the de- uurrer to the petition and to grant c new trial"
 Extra Work on Park.
 A case, taken up from Macon, Ga, involving recovery for alleged extra work performed by contractors for the United States government, was affirm ed by the Court of Appeals. The style of the proceeding Is that of Wright, Williams and Wadley vs. the United States
 The contractors sued for about $5, 900 which they claimed was due them for extra work in Improvements on Chicka- maugua Park. In the lower court of the Southern district of Georgia the case was decided adversely to the com tractors.
 Tn affirming the lower tribunal, the Court of Appeals says:
 "On the facts found by the trial judge as recited in his opinion in the manuscript on file, which we find to be in accordance with the evidence, the Judgment of the circuit court is cor rected. and we affirm the same"
 Another case involving litigation over an insurance policy for s50,00O. reached the Appellate Court from Savannah, Ga, was affirmed In this proceeding Max Alexander is the ap- pellant and Mills B. Lane, ct al., exe- cutors ct al, are appellees.
 The question involved was the as- signment of an insurance policy for $50,000 in the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York. on the life of John R. Young to Max Alexander Young died November 19, 1905. The dispute is between Alexander and Mills B. Lane, and other executors of the will of Young, as to the proceeds of the policy.
 The court sustained the judgment of the lower court whereby Alexander gets $4.76s with interest from May 4, 1903 and the remainder goes to the executors of Young's will,
 In affirming the decision, the Court of Appeals says;
 ''The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed on the authority of Warnock vs. Davis. 104 U. S., 775. and Manhattan Life Insurance Company vs. Hennessey, Federal TO-" y
 Texas Land Case. The case of Mrs. Ella c. Bragg Fer ris ct al. vs. Mrs. Virginia A. Gillum, on appeal from Houston, Tex, was yaf- frmed. This was lOnd proceeding involving the question of boundary lines.
 The comment of the court in affirm ing the case is as follows:
 'The majority of the court is of the opinion that there Is no reversible er- TOT in he record. The judgment is therefore, affirmed"
 Sitting in final session in Montgomery yesterday, the Court of Appeals hearo arguments in the cases with the Easie Iron Company on one side and Louis S Colyar on the other, on appeal rom Anniston. There are two phases or the case, one being an appeal and the other being an application for a writ of mandamusS Both were heard jointly.
 The litigation is a contest between the naajority and the minority stock holders of the Eagle Iron Company. In argument, the company was repre- l sented by B. P. Crum and W. A. Gun | fer of Montgomery; and Louis s. Col var by w. R. Dortch and J. B. Martin | of Gadsden The court took the cases under advisement.
 This concI1ded the labors of the