SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Ordered that Rule 32 of the Rules of this Court is stricken out and the following is promulgated as Rule 32:
WRITS OF ERROR AND APPEALS UNDER THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 25, 1889, CHAPTER 236.
Cases brought to this Court by writ of error or appeal, under the Act of February 25, 1889, Chapter 236, where the final judgment or decree rendered by the Circuit Court does not exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, will be advanced on motion, and heard under the rules prescribed by Rule 6 in regard to motions to dismiss writs of error and appeals.
Promulgated March 10, 1890.
Ordered that subdivision 4 of Rule 23 of this Court is amended so as to read as follows:
4. In cases in admiralty, damages and interest may be allowed if specially directed by the court.
Promulgated March 10, 1890.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
There having been an Associate Justice of this Court appointed since the commencement of this term, it is ordered that the following allotment be made of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of said court among the Circuits, agreeably to the act of Congress in such case made and provided, and that such allotment be entered of record, viz. :
For the First Circuit, HORACE GRAY, Associate Justice.
For the Second Circuit, SAMUEL BLATCHFORD, Associate Justice.
For the Third Circuit, JOSEPH P. BRADLEY, Associate Justice.
For the Fourth Circuit, MELVILLE W. FULLER, Chief Justice.
For the Fifth Circuit, LucIUS Q. C. LAMAR, Associate Justice.
For the Sixth Circuit, DAVID J. BREWER, Associate Justice.
For the Seventh Circuit, JOHN M. HARLAN, Associate Justice.
For the Eighth Circuit, SAMUEL F. MILLER, Associate Justice.
For the Ninth Circuit, STEPHEN J. FIELD, Associate Justice.
ALABAMA CLAIMS, COURT OF.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, A, 3.
Where appeals by five defendants from a final decree were allowed in open
court in October, 1885, and the amount of the supersedeas bond as to
one of them was fixed at $100, but he never gave it, and the others
perfected their appeal, and the record was filed in this court in
October, 1886, and, when the case came on for hearing in November,
1889, he asked leave to file a proper bond, it was granted nunc pro
tunc as of the day of hearing. Shepherd v. Pepper, 626.
ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES.
1. It was the purpose of Congress by the 12th and 13th sections of the
army appropriation act of July 15, 1870, 16 Stat. 318, 319, to reduce
the number of officers in the army, and to that end § 11 authorized the
President to eliminate from it officers who were unfit for the discharge of
their duties by reason of a cause which had no meritorious claim upon
the consideration of the government, while § 12 made a general grant
of power to the President to make the reduction by selecting the best,
and mustering out the residue; and the President, being empowered to
proceed under either grant, could commence proceedings under § 11,
and abandon them, and then proceed under § 12. Street v. United
States, 299.
2. The 12th section of the army appropriation act of July 15, 1870, 16
Stat. 318, authorized the President to fill vacancies in the army then
existing, or which might occur prior to the 1st day of January then
next. The 1st day of January, 1871, fell on Sunday; Held, that, in
the exercise of the power thus conferred, an order made on the 2d day
of January, 1871, was valid. Ib.
3. The executive action, under the army appropriation act of July 15,
1870, reducing the army, was recognized by Congress in 18 Stat. 497,
c. 159, § 2; 20 Stat. 35, c. 50; 20 Stat. 321, c. 100; 20 Stat. 354,
c. 175; 21 Stat. 510, c. 151, and was thereby validated, even if otherwise
invalid. lb.
ASSIGNMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF CREDITORS.
1. It is settled law in Virginia that an assignment by a debtor for the
benefit of creditors will not be declared void, as given "with intent to
delay, hinder or defraud creditors, purchasers" etc., unless such an
inference is so irresistible as to preclude any other; that the fact that
creditors may be delayed or hindered, is not, of itself, sufficient to
vacate the instrument; and that one creditor may be preferred over
another. Peters v. Bain, 670.
2. When an assignment for the benefit of partnership and individual
creditors includes all the property of the grantors as partners and
individually, it should be construed distributively, partnership assets
being applied to the payment of partnership debts, and individual
assets to individual liabilities. Ib.
3. An assignment for the benefit of creditors, with preferences, authorized
the trustees to "make sale of the real and other personal estate hereby
conveyed, at public auction or private sale, at such time or times, and
place or places, and after such notice as to them shall seem best, and
they may make such sale upon such terms and conditions as to them
shall seem best, except that at any sale of said property, real or per-
sonal, at public auction, any creditor secured by this deed in the
second class above enumerated shall have the right to purchase any
part or parcel of said property so sold, and pay the said trustees there-
for, at its full face value, the amount found due such purchaser secured
by this deed, or so much thereof as may be necessary to enable such
creditor to complete the payment of his purchase money, and to
enable as many creditors as possible to become bidders on these
terms, the said trustees may have the real estate hereby conveyed, or
any part thereof, laid off into lots or parcels, as they may think best;"
Held, that the deed was not void in law because of the insertion of
this provision. Ib.
4. The individual members of a private banking house, who were also the
controlling directors in a national bank, made an assignment of their
property for the benefit of creditors, which assignment was assailed
as fraudulent in several matters, among which were alleged frauds
upon the national bank, and frauds upon their own depositors previ
ous to the assignment; Held, that violations of their fiduciary rela-
tions to the bank, or their treatment of their own depositors did not
render the assignment of all their property for the benefit of their
creditors, fraudulent for that reason.
Ib.
5. The knowledge by a director and stockholder in a national bank that
the bank is insolvent, does not invalidate an assignment of all his
property for the benefit of his creditors, with preferences, made with
such knowledge. Ib.
6. The court below was right in finding no evidence in this case of a
fraudulent intent on the part of the firm or either of its members to
hinder and delay their creditors. Ib.
|