New Rule of Court for Creditors News of paramount importance to creditors who have recovered judg~ ments in the US. Court. became Known on Tuesday uly 24)
the cause of the case of L. EH Hudecv. Grant Mark and the China Finance Corporation, when the court indicated that a new tule of court is under contemplation whereby a supplementary proceedings would be set-up so that judgment debtors can be cited into court for an examination as to their assets, transfers of property and the like. The rule, however, hias not yet been formulated Judge Milton J. Helmick granted the plaintiff in the case the right of extreme amendment to set up an entirely different cause of action in the form of a Creditor's Bill. The necessity for amendment and change of the nature of the action arose from the circumstance that the plain~ tif was unable to sue out a Writ of Garnishment against the China Finance Corporation to attach moneys: allegedly due from it to the defendant, Mr. Mark, because there was no' judge of the WS. Court at the time and no writs could be issued. Consequently the plaintiff filed a complaint asking an injunction to restrain the China Finance Corporation from paying over money to Mr. Mark. No injunction could be issued in" the absence of a judge and apart from service of the complaint, nothing further was done. The money, it is said by plaintiffs counsel, Mr. N. F. Allman, has been paid over. Since an injtinetion would now be frultless, the plaintif® desired to proceed with the case on the theory of a creditor's proceeding. The court permitted this but held the complaint would have to be amended to set up {the proper allegations for the purpose, 'The plaintiff is now seeking to recover $19,849.02 for services rendered by him as architect for the Grand Theatre from August, 1931, to June, 1933, and for which' he was granted judgment against Mr. Mark on February 20, 1984. Mr, Mark was doing business under the firm name of the Greater Theater Syndicate at the time the obligation was incurred.
Something of his financial difeul~ ties were aired when Mr: Allman alleged in court that the defendant had become involved in dimeulties with his employers, the China Finance Corporation, which terminated its agreement with him. Mr. Mark's claim was settled, said Mr. Allman, for the sum of $50,000 which was pald to Mr. Mark by a cheque made out to Mrs. M. L, Mark, mother of the defendant and, according to Mr. Allman, a British subject outside the jurisdiction of the US, Court.
further alleged that the China Finance Company "colluded with 1 defendant in making the cheque declaring that the payment made after. the service of the writ execution upon the company, and two notiflations in writing of the Judgment and the writ, warning against payment of any money with= Out payment to the Marshall of the US. Court. The writ was. however, returned unpaid.
Mr. C. 8. Franklin, counsel for the defendant, argued that the proceeding under which Tuesday's action was brought was a Supplementary Proceeding, and that Mr. Mark could not be examined under Mr. Allman, contending that, the action was brought on a Creditor's Bill, asked leave to file an amendment the claim. It was at this point that the court indicated the considera tion of the new rule of court which, attorneys conceded that day, would assist in the matter of executing judgments were it effected in this jurisdiction, Heretofor, the latter were of small import, actually, unless the debtor's assets and. their location was known.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.