The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-02-10
e~N F Decision of the Court of
 Appeals. RIAL TO DETERMINE
 NECESSITY OF RECEIVER - s------- Rtding Cane Up in Case Filed
 yesterdaY.
 ------e---- s'4 ss We. sAe Fir-s rs.s.ns. sA.s sAs xsisl HAa Bee. ordered !. Lecs' Court Bes.use ,sf New
 Rulisx.

By the mandate of the United states Court of Appeals in the ease of T. g :. Eaulk of Anda1usia, precedent of most vital importance In future. adju- elections of barkruptcy is established. a Az heretofore the appointmenti I or upon the complAiht of petitioning cred stors According to the terms of the courts mandate, the appointment is not made gufitii after the alleged bank rupt shall appear before the court, in which the petition sssfiled. by his cred ltors, to show cause why the adjudis cation shah not be made.F
 The effect of the mandate of the Court of Appeals came to light yeseer- day. upon q petition filed in @the ,iocAs oflicc of the United states Court
 According to former ciistou,s the ap- poinkments ssof d. recei9er should nave come immediately; in the case Of yeA- eerday, however, an order has been issued, ins light of the railing of tue Court of Appeals. to hold, on Eebfuary 1s, d hearing to decide whether or net fhe ad3udication shah be made, ant the recelwef be appointed. ss
 The mandate of the Court of Appeals was reached after q hearing of the ease of T. Fnuik Of AndaiustA, against steiner Iobman q Frank, or Montgomery. and . copy sent to the office of Judge Jones last Friday. Tne case of yesterday is the first case of Ahe Montgomery ofsice since the res rstpt of the mandate. and hence is the nrst to be affscted by It's ruling
 s. FAulig merchant Of large holding In Andaiusia, had been thrown in bankruptcy, and a receiver appoint. cd immediately upon the petition of three creditors, among whom was claimed by Faulk that the petition and the appointment of the receiver was ordered without his knowledge. that his business was thoroughly solvent, and that sthe action cfathe court was unwerrantsd.
 Fauiis. before Judge Jones in the united States Court, sued to vaease the ofice of receiver, which suit was de. nted. Later he asked for trial by jury, to determine his solvency. which was denied, although the matter was placed before Q special referee.
 DeesMEoh Reversed.
 The Court of Appeals. however. rec Rersed the decision Of Judge Jones and lnf Referee Asa Stratton, who had made Ahe Initial appointment of receiver: : E'AuIk, by. the ruling of the Court of Appeals, was declared solvent, the re- neivership was vacated. and, to all inc Ksnts, precedent estabiished by which NIsere shall be. hereafter a trial De- &ore the court in wlsiEf Q petition ta 3ied. to determine whether or not Q receiver shall be appointed to take over Ehe affafra of Che alleged bankrupt.
 The mandate Of the ceurtOf Appeals, with It's Inferred precedent vas re- ceived In the Monkgopnery ocice of the United States Circuit Court only last week. Since its receipt there has been no petitions in involuntary bankruptcy nled until the one came yesterday.
 Lon& fn DsnzavsF.
 The regulation. by which receiver is appointed, and . btaasnees suspended, without she voice of the buainess man against whom the petition is aimed, has been regarded by disfavor for some tiine. rho merchant whoge business ia thus suspended, hAa no recourse for any damage inffictsds in case he in solvent, except by suit---a most uncer- tain and altngethef unsatlsfac ctory pro cedure. By the mandate of the Court Of Appeals, however, the danger of ia- fury to a solvent business is ohviaeed hy the opportunity of hearing and defense.