China Motors Sued by Briton 'A. complicated case concerning the ownership of @ Buick ear and a loan §2200 which was made with the car as security came before Judge Milton J. Helmick in the U.S, Court for China on Saturday. The car has been the subject of much litigation in the Chinese courts, and after hearing counsel for both sides, Judge Helmick adjourned the case,' that of J. B. Manley. (Mortimer, Reid & Sleep) v. China Motors, Fed. Inc, USA, sine die, pending a judgment from the Chinese Court, Counsel concerned wore Dr. Grossman for the plaintiff, Messrs.
J, Schuhl and N. E. Lurton for the defendants, and Dr, O. Fischer for the intervener, Mr, J. Brandstaedter. When the hearing' opened, however, Mr, Schuhl said that his clients were eliminated from the suit, being merely in the position of stake-holders. The case really lay between the plaintiff and the intervener, Rehearsing the plainti's evidence, Dr, Grossman said that towards the end of January, 1925, a Mr. H. J. Holder approached Mr. Manley and asked him to obtain a loan for_him fof $2,200, offering as security a Buick cat which was then, and still was, stored with China Motors. atr. Manley managed to effect the loan, which was Security asked for the tle of the car. Mr. Holder said that ne preferred to five them a trans ior dees, signed by #ecal commission frm, as ne had Sblaiped the car dram a' third party the owed him a large sum in Fetch [francs and was unable to pay Bim.
'The Joan was not repaid maturity, and accordingly Bar. blonley ound a' purchaser for the car and failed on the China Motors to deliver him, Mz, Holder bad meanwhile Jef Cama, "The China Motors, how fever, replied that Mr. Brandstaedter, 2 Pole, had informed them the car was his property, and the question ownership of the car was now "under the consideration "of the Chinese Supreme Court. The present suit had been brought against The China Motors as, if, Judgment were given by the Chinese court. in fr. Brandstaedter's favour, Mr. [Manley had a claim against the China Motors; having arranged the loan on understanding that the car would be derivered to him, reply, Dr. Fischer said that the ear' had originally been deposited (with the China Motors by a repre entative of Mr, Brandstaedter, with Instructions for them to find a buyer! for It. He left Shanghai for a short wus, and on his return found that certain people were trying to get {oan on his car. He went. to. the defendants, pointed out to them that the eat was his, and hence could not be sold." Later, Mr. Manley brought sult against his client in the Ist Speciad District Court. in order foblain the court's decision as to the ownership of the car. Judgment was given against' Mr. Manley, and "he fappeaied, to lose again, The case was now, under consideration by. the Supfeme Court in Nanking.
From the statements by counsel, said Judge Helmick at this juncture, appeared. to him that the court should not take jurisdiction over the feonteeversy between the plaintiff and the intervener as to the title of the fear. "That issue. was now pending in tigation in, the Chinese courts, which were the competent and proper tri-Dunats to determine the mater, sion of the car, the court "would With regard to the physical posses-
Totain' Jurisdiction of the cause, for {the purpose of ordering' the 'China Motors. to deliver the car. to the prevailing party when a Anal adfudiestion was' received" from the With regard to the case between Me, Manley and' the China Motors, Judge, Helmick expressed. the opinion hat the letter from the defendant to Wo. glint did not. constitute a guarantee or contract to pay. He rave Dr, "Grossman permission to!
ave on this point, however, as soon the Chinese court had decided on the question of ownership,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.