Duff v. Hopkins
Decision Date | 07 November 1887 |
Citation | 33 F. 599 |
Parties | DUFF v. HOPKINS. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Levi Bird Duff, for complainant.
John H Orvis and Charles H. McKee, for defendant.
This is a suit in equity, brought by Levi Bird Duff, assignee in bankruptcy of Carrier & Baum, against Albert C. Hopkins. The case is complicated, and, for the proper understanding of it a somewhat lengthy recital of facts is necessary.
John Carrier and Andrew F. Baum were adjudicated bankrupts by the district court of the United States for the Western district of Pennsylvania in June, 1874, and, in the following September, assignees of their estates were appointed. Each of the bankrupts, at the commencement of the proceedings in bankruptcy, was the owner of the undivided one-third of four tracts of land, viz: Warrant No. 13, situated partly in Jefferson county and partly in Clearfield county, and Warrant Nos. 1988, 2009, and 3592, situated in the latter county, all in said district; but the titles to this real estate passed to the assignees incumbered by several judgments, which the First National Bank of Wellsville, Ohio, had obtained in the United States circuit court for said district against the bankrupts, respectively, and other judgments in the same court against the bankrupts, which were subsequently assigned to the bank. After the adjudication, under the leave of the bankrupt court, writs of scire facias to revive all said judgments were issued, with notice to Richard Arthurs, the then sole assignee of the bankrupts, and judgments of revival were entered in the circuit court in the years 1878 and 1879. With like leave executions against John Carrier were then issued out of the circuit court, and the marshal levied upon and sold to James W. Reilly, the president of the bank, the Carrier interest, or undivided one-third, in said four tracts of land, and by his deed, dated August 25, and acknowledged in open court August 26, 1879, the marshal conveyed the same to said Reilly, who bought in trust for the bank. The bank also acquired tax titles to said lands after the adjudication in bankruptcy. The office of assignee having become vacant on April 12, 1880, by the resignation of Richard Arthurs, Levi Bird Duff, on that day, was appointed the assignee in bankruptcy. On January 5, 1882, the assignee last named filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of the United States for said district, to No. 11 May term, 1882, against the bank and other defendants, charging that some of the aforesaid judgments were without consideration, and all of them were fraudulently entered originally; that Arthurs, the assignee as the time the judgments were revived, was ignorant of their collusive character, and of the defenses thereto; and praying that said judgments and the revivals thereof, and executions thereon, and the title acquired by the marshal's sale and also said tax titles, be declared null and void. The bank filed an answer in denial of the material allegations of the bill. Pending the taking of testimony in that suit, on November 28, 1883, the assignee in bankruptcy transmitted to the bank an unsigned paper containing terms of settlement, of which the following is a copy:
The minute-book of the bank, under date of November 30, 1883, shows a meeting of the board of directors, at which eight members were present, and contains the following entry:
'W. M. Hamilton submitted a statement furnished by Col. Duff, giving an outline of the basis of settlement of the claims against Carrier & Baum, etc., (see statement on file,) to which all the members present gave their hearty assent.'
The parol testimony shows that the 'statement' referred to in the said minute was the above-quoted paper, or a copy thereof. On the date last mentioned Mr. Reilly, the president of the bank, sent the following telegram to the bank's counsel at Pittsburgh:
The contents of this telegram were communicated to the assignee by Brown & Lambie the same day, or soon thereafter.
The bank on February 27, 1882, had brought an action of ejectment in the court of common pleas of Clearfield county for the tract No. 2,009 against the Sandy Lick Gas-Coal & Coke Company (which was engaged in mining coal therefrom) and others; and in that suit a receiver had been appointed to collect the royalties payable on the mining operations. On December 6, 1883, under an order of that court, entered pursuant to an arrangement between the assignee in bankruptcy and the attorney of record of the bank acting by its instructions, the sum of $3,686.07 (the one-third or Carrier's share) of the net fund in the receiver's hands was paid to the bank, and the like sum of $3,686.07 was paid to L. B. Duff, as assignee of Baum. Of this latter sum the assignee paid $3,511.35 in discharge of the balance of purchase money due on the tract No. 13, and the residue, viz., $174.72, he paid to the bank,-- making the whole amount thus received by the bank $3,860.79. On March 31, 1884, the assignee in bankruptcy and Brown & Lambie, the attorneys at law of the bank, signed a written agreement, of which the following is a copy:
John Hall, U.S. marshal; also all the tax titles it holds for lands of John Carrier and A. F. Baum situated in Clearfield county, Pa.; also its interest in lands of Robert Osborn,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
General Electric Co. v. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co.
...to the plaintiff against a violation of the contract by the defendant.' See, also, Norris v. Fox et al. (C.C.) 45 F. 406; Duff v. Hopkins (D.C.) 33 F. 599-608. Strang v. Richmond P. & C.R. Co., 101 Fed.,at page 517, 41 C.C.A.,at page 480, the court said: 'An executory contract will not be s......
-
Frank v. Stratford-Handcock
... ... Critzer, 11 P. 382; Chapman v ... Morgan, 20 N.W. 820; Oil Co. v. Oil Co., 112 F ... 373; Car Co. v. R. R. Co., 11 F. 625; Duff v ... Hopkins, 33 F. 599; Adderly v. Dixon, 1 S. & ... S., 607; Jackson v. Nicolson, 70 Ga. 198; ... Blulock v. Wagoner, 82 Ga. 122; ... ...
-
Pantages v. Grauman
... ... v ... Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, 19 L.Ed. 955; Firth v ... Ridley, 33 Beavan's R. 516; Shubert v ... Woodward, 167 F. 47, 92 C.C.A. 509; Duff v. Hopkins ... (D.C.) 33 F. 599, 608; Pullman Palace Car Co. v ... Texas & Pac. R. Co. (C.C.) 11 F. 625. Nor, it is held, ... will the remedy ... ...
-
Johnston v. Jones
...but it may in such case be resorted to, to identify the writing referred to. Insurance Co. v. Oliver, (Ala.) 2 South. Rep. 445; Duff v. Hopkins, 33 F. 599. the written agreement executed upon the sale of land stipulated that the purchase money should be paid on such time as the vendee, and ......