| Show REHEARING IS DENIED I I 11 Attica of the Supreme Court in the Dctctet i National Bank Suit I E 91 I AGAINST THE BURTOS 4 GARDNER CO I I I in I I I i 0 la so too IIh An1hodr I Hill I II lolt let 1 rinsto11 IMitll Noises I stilt11thr 11111 is I II The supreme court tnJay denied the petition for a htarlnic In the cow of I the Ihossidesest National IMnk va Ilenrr N Ulnnoodty et 81 l in Tile nw wait i1clltd attnr Unit h title In favor f the defendant tellers 111 the ilalnllff hank iwlllloit for a n o hearln giving It M He opinion that in Jlllir Jacob J Illlon who write the Vi I Orel Ion erred In I Mini of Ih tltwe I en to Imouggeol t An Abstract 1 of the can Addition that T In January loss the Union Onrlncr no company woo Indeptiod I to the t IXmlH kp National lUik In I the um of IMtm rrpreeenlnl hy Iwu rimileeory notea I each floe HeOM The utM WPM On domed by certain llreclnra of Hit Hu i Ion Classifier company i I 1o not all of Hem lot Th n IM 1 ell C title the month f II wIn PU w-In their entlerpossuent I when defendant IT Added tvr an rmnri of tlm and theE the-E loan ImTeatJ top mow This sea Id done has I this bank which llmrl th w underitanllna kind agreement lo tit a that all of the llrrclore opt She Hurl n to Ilourtfromor citorniany wull tidereme and r A gueranter the new milter On the hur March last a guaranteed iKinl ly U M Wtlltr o II Hardy co Henry Dnwoody W H Hurt n 11110 I n Isforrip r H Hardy 1 and W C lIuln I C rtprwtnilnir tl Mutton larlnrr com 11 jny waa KUen lilt bank Th mrts I rrad that they I nr either nf them would I got pay 11 the Dertret National hank any I It and all sums of money which my I w loan l or Advanced Sit I the liurton It Gardner company uiwii stutroo I or Its nc I count 11 the amnUII tit 1111 pay IS anent to to madis limn dional4 r Tin bank ancrdThat lwaa I the inn In-n Itntlon when the uaranlrv wae mlt t Hal It should clever He 1mviouss noire Is aa well ae future loon up tu 36C nand n-and that the dtftndnnta Pit lrfntwi1 S the matters but that hy I a mluke uf t both Iaftfdo I hi limper fallr1 tot to-t perincally In termilrover th Indebl I course at the two firms naive It ueked I hat I the guarantt Ise I jai ref rmnl a j I to alit I what seem at n1 Intrnlrl The dfn Ui la 1nM all file 11n things and practically alMnl that the illt wan t4ll glass dentists Him II woo Ihelr Intention lint the lat paper Should Include the Sores Solid I notes The liatern l Mrrr HIM before Judge l Chtrry Ut June tU court nnliln Ju1nmnl in favor of t he i Ulnlirt Ink I for til 000 field I n ila Awl I reforming the UI I I4v r gap tint It KOUll rover tile alleor4 intention if tit limislOo run orderned Th ilfffnlnl lion ry lntronly at twalril lu the HuprrniK Court Potting nut an rrrir the reforming if the In irun ml hy I Ju lei Chrrry Th ilalnlltf Seek II mlllon Hut the document taken with the riftum litarkek1 urrullnlInor Ih ea wax brand a nouh In drisiver the rulllrt I nklrdnrli even III I the caurt rid fuml 11 r f nm It Th a Huprrmi court rendered UK it Milan on Shp lith of tail I AIrll irrr Into Judge Ittry anl hlInor I that thr nl 101 lrm lo nfurm tile note Ivan In ulnlnl find that without R reforintiss t Ion II seem not brand I rnouih to cover Mier 1liMnrw I lull lift pottlibergesil i nr a rehearing on the nn urvl it miss I y taled with the mull thai Ihe 111 thdis onas today I Id Inl 7110 Status i f H t come now la I thai the lower court In a new trial will tl I termtria lite aniount ul Oil turniflool 10 I VlbT iJreerl National I hank tit Ibis III1r1un Oanlmr IIsmay cov ertl toy ties isruarvitilvat 14 I said h y rill the llreclunt of the defendant company lilvr that emotions la I Judgment will be renlernl cwrdlnllly I |
