Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1915-02-04
THREE SUITS
ARE DECIDED
But Litigation Goes on For
ever-Judge Sawtelle At
filmed in One and Re
versed in Two Decisions
by Appellate Court

News was received here yesterday
of three decisions in Arizona cases,
by the ninth circuit court of appeals
at San Francisco-two of the deci-
sions reversing Judge Sawtelle of the
Arizona federal court. and one of
them affirming him. The cases are
these.
FARMERS and Merchants bank, in its
application for lien against those as
sets OF the Arizona Mutual Savings
and Loan Association, left as sur
plus after the lien of the stockhold-
ers-an appeal against Judge Saw
telleS decision reversing Judge Sloan,
his predecessor, and his order throw
ing the banks application out of
court. In this case, it was not learn
ed whether the appellate court had
affirmed the decision, or had upheld
The order.
copy of the decision will be re-
ceived here today.
The second case was that of the
suit by the Smith Booth Usher com
pany to recover the purchase price of
machinery sold To the Detroit Copper
company, the decision of Judge Saw
telle in favor of the defendant being
reversed, on appeal by Attorney Will
| liam NJ. Seabury.
| The third case was a rather in
volXed one. regarding the application
by the Arizona Copper company. de-
PENDANT in a damage suit by Silvas, a
/ T1Tf1 m en111nai plpintiff IN
security for the costs of the suit.
Judge Sawtelle held that the security
must be put up. on appeal, Attorney
VIM VI. Seabury for the plaintiff
urged that being a minor it was not
necessary for the guardian of Silvas
to put up security, and this position
was upheld by the appellate court
AS phase of the most oddly
mingled case Of the Arizona Mutual
Savings and Loan association and
Arizona Trust company suits. the first
decision brings up the highly rami-
fled litigation in such a way as tc
demand another resume of the entire
proceedings. 1t is noted here, how
ever. that the affirmation of the Saw
itelle order or decree-whichever it is
does not halt the litigation. fol
there yet remains the Seabury appli-
cation for the mandamus to compe
Judge Sawtelle 10 reinstate and re
cognize the Sloan decree.
Originally. the Arizona Trust com
lpany was organized by the officers
Of the Savings and Loan association
to take over the assets of that com
many which was become insolvent
Stockholders in the Savings and LoaI
company were to he given stock II
the Trust company in exchange fo
Their old holdings. The transfer o
the assets was made. in consideration
of $4,000 worth of Trust company
stock, placed in the treasury of tn
loan association, and when part o
the old stockholders asked for Trus
company stock. they were given som'
of that very stock which had beer
used as the purchase price of thei
own assets
Because the superior court of tn
county failed--as the dissatisfied as
sociation stockholders maintained-t'
prevent the officers from keeping tn
, books as they saw fit, in spite Of
Temporary injunction. Mr.. Seabur,
acting for some who had refused tn
transfer and for some who rescinde'
their orders of transfer on proof o
, misrepresentation. took the case int
: he federal court. He represented
Charles Clark. resident Of Califor
MIA. and incidentally named all other
similarly situated in his complaint. &
that any benefits he might have SO
) cured for his clients would accrue +
those others. After much litigation
the case came into the hands of Judg
/ Sloan. then sitting as federal judge i
r Arizona Sloans decision gave to tn
5 stockholders who had refused I
transfer. the first lien on the assets