Article Text
Jay Cooke, McCulloch & Co. LITIGATION ARISING OUT OF THE FAILURE IN 1873. A somewhat complicated but important litigation. growing out of the failure of Jay Cooke & Co., the bankers, was decided yesterday by Judge Daniels, of the supreme court. It will be remembered that the New York house of Jay Cooke & Co., had also a branch firm in London known as Jay Cooke, McCulloch & Co. The suit in question is brought by one of the members of that firm, John Henry Puleston, against his associates, Hugh McCulloch and Frank H. Evans, as also Edwin M. Lewis, as trustee of the estate of Jay Cooke & Co., in bankruptcy, and Francis D. French. By the complaint it appeared that subsequent to their failure the London firm borrowed considerable money from Williams, Deacon & Co., bankers, of London, and as security for the same pledged various railroad bonds and other collaterals belonging to the firm of Jay Cooke, McCulloch & Co. From time to time Williams, Deacon & Co., sent certain portions of these collaterals to French, the agent of Jay Cooke & Co. in this country for sale in the market. The London firm of Cooke & Co., went into liquidation, and French represented them for this purpose. No settlement, however, has yet been had, and the plaintiff charges that Evans has commenced suits in England to gain possession of the surplus assets of his late firm. It is stated that, as a rerult of the sales for Williams, Deacon & Co., French has now in his hands proceeds amounting to $200,000, leaving in the hands of Williams, Deacon & Co. securities, together with what French now has, amounting to $100,000 over and above the debt due them. The platatiff asserts that French intends to remit all sums held by him to Williams, Deacon & Co., which, if he is allowed to do, will work irreparable injury to the partners. He accordingly asks for an injunction restraining the withdrawal of this money, petitions for an accounting and asks that the surplus in the hands of French be distributed to the various partners according to their interest. In deciding the case Judge Daniels. after reciting the facts, goes on to say that the motion should be allowed so far to prevall as to continue the injunction in the form in which it had already been issued. He did not think the appointment of a receiver necessary, and therefore denied the motion of Lewis for that purpose.-N. Y. Herald, 6th.