The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-01-22


fully investigatsd and adjusted BY tAs court.
Csurs-rhs doctrine Of injunction 10 we'll settled.
grant one; whore there 10 any doubt about the
rights Of parties the court will grant one, unless
Mr.. Dsviss- II your honor deems 1t to be clear a.
s that these three ferries established
ia.s
We therefore contend that they cannot apply TO any
other for, under the oonsttution they cannot take
OF Dixon Dixon 9th Howard, and several other
and, in continuation, said the plaintiffs sus-
leases BY the corporation Of the city OF New York IL
they say the interest Of the corporation Is dvssted
corporation conveys no title and they take nothing
BY Il Can II be tolerated that those gentlemen will
prevent establishing ferries and yet by their COM
plaint they don't offer to establish them themselves,
do they even alege that they have tn. means OF
confederation that wharvss slips piers and boats
necessary appendages 70 ferries; they do mot allege
tina. they have any o. n0ss S So nT
tion, and have no means to run them; the injury,
therefore that win result BY granting their spPca
this city By dspriving the corporation Of their reve
nues and by deprving the citizens Of New York and
two cities from having any Intercourse with each
other. 1t Is not shutting out intercourse between
by refusing this injunction your honor cannot injure
those parties until the question decided merits
aud any damage Is sustained BY them, the corpora
E!-Jsdge Kent, on the part Of the plaintiffs, re-
into the discussion the general subject respects
the hts OF persons holding licenses from the com
nissoDers and corporation q New York, DEERE TO
and Pierpoint Your honor has supposed that in one
point OF view the corporation and defendants stand in
the same position New, apprehend II the corpora
ton be restrained, also will all persons claiming
through them But apart from this there equities
against those gentlemen themselves. And now let me
call your attention to what those equities apart
from the general doctrine we seek to establish The
first fact in regard them, which shall notice, is
this = In the year lS44 the corporation OF this city
granted lease to Mcintyre and Pierpoint of three
ferries this pressly granted to be held
by them their executors administrators and assigns,
being thus essees OF the corporation and holding those
rights and having rights to assign they entered into
agreement with various persons; and now start
with this proposition that it perfectly competent
fer them to enter into partnership with those parties
and that their sole object the management OF
those ferries Now sir, amongst the rules for the
of this partn ershp the 10th rule states
that a majority of the board, at all their meetings,
shall govern and pass by laws provided ten pre-
sent but says counsel the othsr side the general
intention Of the parties the mAnae emen of the
ferries but the 9th clause of the articles declares tn
the partnership shall continue during the lease aud il
renewed lease Now if the partnership provided for
renewal they had clearly right to renew il; and by
that they not only bind the partnership but
lie Roy and Perpoint, who, We contend were parties
TO authorize the passage of the resolution for renewal
OF raid lease, and are consequently bound by it
Itmay be said that the stockholders might terminate
1t before, but however that may be- apartner cannot
dissolve where contract nvoving the rights Of third
parties has been entered into l will here remark
to the renewing Of the lease After the passage of the
Ia Of 1915 the plaintiffs in this ,ut addressed
munication the Of the association, which
is set forth in the complaint Now, wish to remark
again Ii at when they wished to consent to renewal
OF the lease all they that it Should be
newed by the proper authssities but IT, in the in.
telm the renewal taken from the old lessor would
not the ne lea,e conaining the essential coyenants
OF the old lease within the power OF tn. articles
for u Is no matter what party grants it, lift contains
the essential covenants OF the old lease II right
thus Tar the person receiving the license Of the State
Commissioners and Offering 1t TO the managers which
offer they accept, does not that within the
I q aa az "a.
accepted although IL asserted the other side that
twas noe. Now sir, say that this contract imposes
ON Benson and others 10 obtain lease from ths
nissoners, and that the agreement behalf OF the
managers, that II they WOULD get the lease they would
act and form this partnership But IL Ia sal on the
other eide, that specific performance could not be
enioI ced by Court OF Equity bnt II IL be specids
shoush 70 ecmPsi them 20 osrry out. ne.oy aua
defendants having partnership with us, they have
gone in fraud and violation of rights, to receive
lease, In their individual capacity, under which
would have rights whatever and in that particular
they acting ia contra Of the we'll established
been guilty OF nssngencei Now, what i. the charge
brought agsint us IN this particular Aa~ passed
in 1oa5 and IN pursuance OF that law the 18th OF
october. 1898 We obtain license 10 ferries
Notice is Ften by us to the Mayor the eth o; No.
VEN Der. ls4S and according 70 the admission Of the
corporation counsel that body mmediately after fsd
aeonplaiDt TO restrain us fom proceeding further.
and what ground IL therefor charging with negI-
gence when they themselves have hlsd bill 70
~ from going en- to complete our arrangeusntsl
\ The gentlemen say we do not intend TO apply for
slips, that We have not said so In mplsint but
We have said that We have got license and have
forward and treat with and further ray that Il
they % not We would apply 20 judge, and hsvsa
jury struck "a put value what weak for and they
have hlsd bill TO stop ask, where is neg
seree lev words nos as To the propriety Of graut
ing the IN JUNCTION. We say entitled 70 III be.
cause the granting Of this lease will be injuriou. to
rights Judge Kent then referred u the passage
ssSs. ss0Iy rs1a 1ns ~ s e' sne IIai END
eontended that they entitled to take the
ferries but With respect to the slips ne said they
did not pretend 70 be entitled except By immi-
nent domain. which they took in right Of their H.
cen,e and they also admitted they were bouoi to
pay for them the ful valuation OF the land With
gard 70 general rights proposition Is this We sd
nit thst no state law can invaidste contract. We
admit further, that an INSTRUMENT granted by royal
authority charter We also admit that the lcVisa
ture have no right 20 take from the grantees their
al not come within this clause Of the con.titu.
ton that the legislature have right 70 interfere with
corporations, and take from them municipal and
other powers but not 60 take from them private pro
psrfy-snd next that the act Of 1si5 did affect
private property, but only the political rights Of the
right In those propositions II answer TO Us to say
they derive their property from three chsrter.-thst
turtles Let them show that Il IL private property,
and We have no right to touch u but ifit 10 public
right - contend IL Il, then we have right t. tax.
i from them. however strongly IL may be granted
And here wish the court 70 take notice Of shat I
nv r.. ~ a. VII o. = concession = The other
the court g shew where the old ferry was To-
Gated II they can show where 1t DO not
wsBt g take IL, bat all the other ferries the
grant Of which political rights those We can and
will take will nov proceed to make few remarks
on the general subject. We admit the general propo
sition that no State impair contracts and We al
INIT that charter by State by royal authority IL
In genera contract and that Il IL OF eomprtentf,r
the Legislature to take charter from private com
paDy. nor nom public com pspya private right Tha
1ittinction between private and public mpany IL
we'll expressed By Judge Story In e6s wheaton and
Ia the great cause OF the Dartmouth College which
recognized By all the courts u this country those
a lint he ~ rla
college contsin, distinction which n clualy recox
niied BY laws IL II this that the Leailas ay
interfere. Judge Washington says AZ page $50 that
the Lesisature have right to interfere II municipal
corporations. Here Judge Kent cited pumbs Of |
authorities, 10 show that corporations can be coz
troIled, their charters nodded rep alsd 81
Mr. John Van Buren, replied 10 Mr Kent -arsr