The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-11-22
NEW JERSEY
AGAINST
ENGLAND
(Continued from First Paee.)

| the OOuII VI OidINC1V u bO P1AHSARNNf
! the English heirs Will benefit. If 1t
be declared part of the income, Sohege,
| the complainant and citizen of France,
will benefit. Mrs. Singer owned origin
| ally 2,7S7 shares. The t~wo-hundred per
cent. dividend, allotted to her estate
after her death, made 1874 more shares.
The par value of each share is 500,
but the big dividends and the accumula-
tons of surplus make the actual Value
of the stock much more.
The decision by Vice-Chancellor How
ell is only on preliminary points, but 1T
| gives Sohege a gain. The points raised
were as to the sufficiency of the no.
tice served on the English parties to
the suit, and as to the jurisdiction OF
the court In the action. The 5,574
shares, after the institution of the suit,
were placed In the hands of receivers
~pendente lite, they being Douglass
Alexander and Frank P. McDermott.
Mrs. Singer, after the death of the
machine company founder, went to
England and there was married to her
second husband, the Vicompte de
Bloomendaal, otherwise known as the
Due de Camposelice. This marriage
was on January 5. 1879. The vicompte
died September 1, 1887, and in the latter
part of 1891 she married Sohege in
Paris. where she was then living.
The day before she was married to her
second husband she made an ante-nuptial
agreement with the vicompte under the
English law by which she transferred the
original shares of Singer stock TO trus-
tees. the Income to go to her during her
life and the shares on her death to her
children unless she should dispose of them
otherwise.
When she married Sohege In France she
made an ante-nuptial agreement with
him also, which did not affect the singer
Company stock. Madame Sohege con-
tinued tc receive income from the original
Singer shares, and also from the 300
dividend shares during her life. She dieo
on May II, 1904, in France. Her SURVIVORS
were her husband and the English heirs.
In her will she made her husband her
ouniversal legatee." The court, in it's
decision, assumes this to mean her resid-
uary legatee. To sohege she left such
mart of her estate as she was legally able
to dispose of.
sohere fled a bill in Chancery on De-
cember II, 1905. and on the following day
an Injunction was served on the singer
Company. and on the same day the re-
ceivers were appointed. The English truss
tees and the Singer heirs answered with
the plea that no notice had been person.
ally served on them, and also denied the
jurisdiction of the court, inasmuch as 1t
had previously been acquired and exer-
cised by the courts of England, to which
the ante-nuptia agreement with Mrs. Sim
gers second husband had been submitted.
The question of the right of Sohege to
the dividend shares In question had also
been passed on by the English courts when
he sought to have the trustees transfer
the shares to him. The courts there ruled
against him.
By bringing the suit here, where the
concern exists in which the shares are
held. Sohege hopes to overrule in the Court
Of Chancery here the effect of the English
decision.
II is now possible for the defendants in
the Chancery action. the Singer company
the Singer heirs, to appeal the decision
to the Court Of Errors and Appeals or
again make answer, this time upon he
material grounds the complainant set
forth in his bill.
At the office Of counsel, Lindabury, De-
pew & Fau1ks, a member of the firm said
today it had not yet been decided
would be done, but that very likely a
plea would be put forth that the Vice.
Chancellor follow the findings of the Eng
llsh court, without a trial on the merits
of the case.
Such a procedure, 1t was said, is strong
ly directed by precedent, although not al
ways observed.
In his opinion ice-Chancellor Howell
takes the ground that h defense has
made a dual answer, and is, therefore,,
technically at fault, and that it could be
cast aside altogether for that reason, but
he contends that 1t Is not even necessary
to pass upon its validity. To do so, he
says, might merely cause delay, and he
proceeds to pass on the question Of juris-
diction of the New Jersey courts. This
Jurisdiction, he holds, cannot be doubted,
because the suit must eventually deal with
disposition of Jersey property.
Assertion of the courts jurisdiction in
this case the Vice-chancellor bases on the
res or the subject matter with which
the suit deals, as differentiated from the
persons involved. The conclusion is drawn
that all questions relating to disposal OF
this property, ~indisputably New Jersey
property, from this point of view, lies
unquestionably with the New Jersey
Chancery Court
1T appears" says the Vice-Chancellor,
that the shares In suit are shares in a
New Jersey corporation having a situs
here for purpose of attachment or other
seizure by courts Of this State. They are
in fact in such a situation that the courts
Of this State may for many purposes OBJ
tain and hold control over them. 1t like
wise appears by the record of the case
that the transfers of these shares lave
been enjoined and that the court has gone
even further than to merely restrain these
transfers. Tt has appointed receivers, to
whose charge and custody 1T has commit
ted the shares in question. In other words
the record shows that there has been a
seizure of the res In controversy by the
strong arm of the court, which can only
be released by some act of the court
efficient for that purpose.
1.-THE subject matter of this suit Is
within the general equity powers of the
Court of Chancery. If the necessary par
ties are present a decree may undoubtedly
be made, which will dispose of the COIL
troversy.
lone of the questions in this case Is
whether the seizure Of the subject matter
of the litigation gives the court jurisdic-
ton to dispose of the property which it
has in its custody, without personal serv-
ice Of process, within the jurisdiction in
the defendants holding the proper title.
In other words, whether these necessary
parties may be brought in by substantial
service upon a seizure of the thing about
which the controversy is"
The Vice-Chancellor here quotes from
Federal and State decisions and other au-
thorities to show that service by publica-
substantially proceedings against a thing
and not "a nPrSnn thnl1nh mt Wbarp Ina on