Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/160

 IN BB IiISSBUBaBB. 158 �I have no difficulty in holding, therefore, that, •withoat any statutory authority, the clerk may take the acknowledgment and justify the obligors to a bail-bond when required by the court to do Bo. �Judgment for the plaintiff. ���In THE Matteb 01" Lazabus Lissbobobb. �(District Court, 8. D. New York., 1880.) �lîANKUTiPTCT— Cross Demands fob Accommodation Paper Betwebn �BAKKRtTPTS— ADJUSTMENT OF— WHAT PROVABLH. �Shipman, D. J. This is a motion to confirm the report of George F. Betts, Esq., to whom reference was made by order, dated March 8, 1876, to ascertain the amount due from Holmes & Lissburger to Henry P. Hamill. Holmes & Lissburger filed exceptions to the report. �In May, 18Y4, the firm of Holmes & Lissburger and Henry F. Hamill -were each large dealers of metals in the city of New York. Each was aware that the other was financially em- barrassed and needed assistance to raise money. In that month Hamill applied to Holmes & Lissburger for the loan of their paper, to his order, to the amount of $60,000 or $70,000, and as an inducement to this loan ofïered to loan them a lot of pig iron and railroad iron, with the right to hypothecate the same for their own benefit. These loans were made. Holmes & Lissburger loaned Hamill $68,000 of their paper, the earliest note maturing September 19, 1874, and he loaned them about 2,000 tons of iron, to be returned, or to be re- turned in iron of equal amount and value. This iron they pledged to various parties as security for their indebtedness. ïhe notes were not given in payment for the iron, which was treated as a loan to the firm and was entered among their loan accounts. Hamill agreed to pay these notes as they matured, and thus the iron would be, in effect, a security against his default, for Plolmes & Lissburger would have the property in their control, with which they could secure themselves for the ����