The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-01-31
Broadway Railroad Injunction Case.
SUPERIOR CoURT-GENERAL TERM.
Before Hon. Judges Duer, Campbell Bosworth, and
Emmett,

Before Hon. Judges Duer, Campbell, Bosworth, and
Emmett.
ARGUMENT OF Ry-CHIEF JUSTICE BRONSON on BE-
HALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS.
JAN 29.-EX-Chief Justice Bronson said--Several
objections have been made to this proceeding and
the first is, that the Injunction is imperative against
the members Of the Common Council, because they
are not parties to the suit. To that answer that
the Aldermen and Assistant Aldermen are parties to
the suit The suit is against, and the injunction was
addressed to the Corporation Of the City of New
Iork-to the Mayor, Aldermen and Common Coun-
Gil Of the City Of New York-in fact to the whole
corporation Now the whole includes all the parts.
II includes every branch, all the integral parts OF
this corporation, all the official members of this
corporation. A corporate body we know is one
thing, but it must have members and officers and
agents; and although a corporation is thing that
cannot be ITSELF yet when process is directed to
the corporation it is served upon some human being
who is an officer and agent OF the corporation and
stands ready to carry its behests into effect. The
suit was against the Corporation by its corporate
name, and the order was addressed to every
official OF that corporate body They were all
included in it. When it is required to get
an answer upon oath-when you want to probe
the conscience, you sometimes go beyond the cor
porate body and make the directors agents Of the
corporation parties TO the suit, for the purpose Of
discovery but never did ] hear Of process or any
thing TO restrain the action Of corporation directed
to anybody but the corporate body ITSELF for il the
corporation disregard the injunction when it is ad-
dressed to it, it does it by the acts of its officers,
who, by their acts, are the persons who do the deed.
So when Sheriff is restrained from selling property
an execution, or any other officer il restrained
from doing anything and he does it, il is not the
officer who is punished but the individual and it
Is with corporate body it is not the Aldermen who
are punished, but the individuals Sturtevant and
others. This argument Is conclusive for the other
side have cited no in support of this PROPOSE
ton. Nothing is said in the books in relation to it,
and the reason is, that nobody ever doubted IT, In
support OF this proposition, the learned counsel
cited Cumberbach, 227-Smth against Butlcr-in
which case the Mayor and commonalty of New Sa-
rune had failed to perform an award which was
made a rule Of court by consent, and remedy was
moved for against the corporation and the learned
Judge said, II the breach can be fixed
against any particular person, we will attach him.
These cases Of mandamus are analogous 1t is
command addressed TO corporate body to do an act:
it is the command Of the Court to do it, and the ques
ton is, whether it Is to be obeyed. Counsel cannot
make any distinction between these He said they
weSe not the same thing, but that all he could
say about them. In support Of this point the learned
counsel cited Kid on Corporations and Angel and
Armies Corporations. The next objection TO this
injunction is that copy Of the affidavit upon which
the Injunction was granted was not served; but in
answer to this say that il sufficient to serve it
upon the Mayor. The learned counsel then proceed
ed at great length to contend that the Court had ju
risdiction over the Common Council In their legsla
tive capacity, and concluded az follows II regard It
as grand and serious matter that the authority OF
the Court and its powers should be respected in the
community; and that men should not d. anything u