The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-02-28
CASE
SETTLED IN COURT
FRoNEBERGER SUIT AGAINST
CHARLOTTE BANK HAD IN
CEPTIoN IN 1869.
LOWER COURT UPHOLD
CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS Az
FIRMS DECREE SUSTAINING
DEMUHRER--wANT OF
EQUITY.

A suit. having its inception in Cleve-
land county, N. c., four years after
the sclose of the Civil war and the
original parties to which are dead
finally adjudicated in the Circuit
Court of Appeals here yesterday, when
a decision was handed down affirming
the Judgment of the District court
Lewis B. Froneberger VS.. the First
National bank. Of Charlotte, N. c.
The suit was filed by Lewis F'rone-
berger in December, 1911, after he
had purchased from tho original
creditors the judgments against sew
eral firms In Cleveland county, mem
bers of which were his father and
other relatives When Judgment was
found against the Froneberger firms
the lands in Cleveland belonging to
David Froneberger were sold at
auction and bought in for $4,000 by
the First National bank of Charlotte.
one of the creditors.
The Appellants Plea.
Froneberger charged that collision
with other prospective bidders by the
bank with fraudulent intent sup
pressed the bidding, resulting in the
sale of the property at a ridiculously
low figure. Froneberger claimed that
the property was worth $4,000. and
sued for the s27,500 difference be-
tween value and sale price, claiming
that a court decision in a suit brought
at the time by A j. Crews. another
creditor, against the bank. had upheld
the contention of collusion and had
fixed the valuation of the property
at $4,000. Froneberger explained the
delay in bringing suit by stating that
the other creditors OF the Froneberger
firms were widely scattered and had
not known of the existence OF fraud.
The bank entered demurrer to the
bill OF complaint, filed by Froneherger.
and the demurrer was sustained. 1t
was from this decision that Froneber-
ger appealed TO the Circuit court, only
to have the decision sustained. on the
ground, among others, of want OF
equity and the statute OF limitations.
The following cases were argued in
the appellate court yesterday. Circuit
Judges Goff and Prftchard and District
Judges Boyd. Dayton and Smith being
in attendance:
No 1925. A Louisa NJ Gilbert ct
al, plaintiffs in error. vs.. W. r. Hop
kins ct al, defendants in error. In
error to the District court at Ashe-
vile, ". c.
No. 1894. A Louisa NJ. Gilbert ct
al. plaintiffs in error, VS.. w. r. Hop
kins, defendant In error. In error to
/ the District court at Asheville, n. c.
7 1dlStS al uEo to&ttf4SI ny ddH&SS Ai
Merrimcn, of Asheviile, n. c., and
Marshall w. Bell, OF Murphy, n. c..
| for the plaintiffs in-error. and by C. b.
/ Matthews, of Cincinnati, o., and Theo-
I dore F. Davidson, of Asheville. N. C..
| for the defendants in error, and sub
| mitted.
I Court adjourned until this morn.
t ing at II o'clock, when the following
case will be argued:
| No. 1850. Cherokee Tanning Elk.
! tract company ct al. appellant, VS.
/ George II. Leonard & Co. ct al. ap-
/ pellees; appeal from the District court
at Asheville. y. c. To be argued by
/ Thomas s. Rollins and James II, Mer.
riman. of Asheyille, n. c.. for the
/ appellants, and by ALI s. Barnard, OF
| Ashcville, y. c.. for the appellees.