FURBER v. STEPHENS. 17
· Cnnnunom M.mUr’o Co. v. Rossnm. el al.
(C‘a7rcuit (hurt. S. D. New York. April 9, 1888.)
UNr·rn1:•.S·u·r1rs ExAmNnns—TAx1Ne Tmsrmonr Otrr on Drsrnrcr. _
An examiner of the United States circuit court for the Southern district of
New York cannot take testimony outside of his district. ·
In Equity. Motion to strike out testimony.
J. E. Lhndon Hyde, for complainant.
H. M. Ruggles, for defendant.
Lscomnm, J. This is a motion to strike out certain testimony taken
before one or the examiners of this district, sitting at Waterbury, Conn.
There isnothing in the statutes or rules, or in any reported case, which
authorizes a person designated as " examiner of the circuit court of the
United States for the Southern district of New York" to sit and take
testimony outside of his district. The decision cited (Railroad Co. v.
Drew, 3 Woods, 697) does not apply; in that case the examiner was
specially appointed for the district in which he took the proof. The
proper mode of taking testimony in equity cases pendingin this circuit
is indicated in a memorandum tiled this day in Arnold v. Cheaebrough,
ante, 16. i i
~ Fomsna v. Srmrnnns.
[ (0'ércuil Uourt, E. D. Missouri, E. D May 5, 1888.) ·
Bums Ann BANKING——DEPOB]TS—INBOLVENCY—REPLEVIN.
Where plaintiff deposits money with the receiving teller of a bank, n few
minutes before the bank closes its doors, to be cre ited to his account, and
the teller, not knowing of the coming failure, after crediting the money in
plaintiffs pass-book, puts the money and deposit ticket one side, and before
entry is made in the books of the bank. it closes its doors, and the money is,
by order of the directors, placed apart, and in that condition delivered to the
receiver, plaintiff can maintain repleviu for the money so deposited.
At Law. Action of replevin. T
John G. Furber, plaintiff, sued L. V. Stephens, receiver. The facts U
appear in the opinion.
Robert W. Goode, for plaintid.
Shackelford d':.; Willrhxnw, for defendant. .
Tnarnn, J., (orally.) This case has been submitted on anagreed
statement of facts. From the statement it appears that plaintiff had been
acustomer of the Fifth National Bank for some time before its failure
on November 7, 1887. Only a few moments before the bank closed its
doors, he delivered $762.50 in current funds over the counter to the re-
v.35s.no.1-2 _