New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-02-07

douhtexceciingy whether when the inlunetoh ISL
duly served the emission 20 serve copy OF ~ 80 80
VII mon which Il WAS founded may, IN all csscs DC a.
led "a valid excuse for disobcdiencs. When tne Or
der Of Injunction cannot property Dc undoi ~ -
consequently Obeyed without knOwleasc On " -
tents Of the affidavit the service CT copy ihSs'
less Be made But when We injunction - psin anu l
picit and leaves doutt as 20 the set walca te g1
iror VII m Il served Is required 10 perform or d'ss
frt N pertaining il may well be doaotei wheslel 'e
irregular emission CT the AFFIDAVIT should &c heu " 70
lease i'm from the duty OF obedience IN sOca cas-
kpowerr Of the contents Of the shdavi woald n'aeE
instruct hun 81 70 ais duty nor avail 70 dscHA' ~
him from - performance. since wnAeFeT E'sl =
The facts stated in the affidavit the nune'ioo, Nu-n
s,, stry from competent authority Until ussostI-
must be 0beycd Krom ". Hosi= sid II 2waf1 = -, -.
s25 Woodward Va. h.ng Ch Ca ~ SUM- "A ''''N
dab Page ii6
The uurpose for which the code very properly reir'
Cd thst copy Of tic adayit shalt IA az case * go,
rcd : no. thst the party upon whom Il = served III "
Sft,rrniue whether he viii or wi not osey the I'1 ir
ticp tu merely "a enable bun without delay - -''
e,i. 70 move for ts dissolution
l. ispct however, upon the ground thaf IN tis cH'e
the alleged ir-esusIty the service OF ne inlIncuon
- - -urb a. % excuse the dsobetienct that i5l-
Iryreg nat we ovcTrule tie objection. Inc papers
show list there wss in truth no TreslIar M 1A
defendant Sturtevaut, can be perinte& 70 S..e-5
-o,v Of the comp G.lr together WltA tAe N dl1sou
,res slv served upcn the Mayor on the 18th OF De-
CENTER the dsy before The meeting OF the boaIS OF
Aldermen. TIE service was properly maze upon am
IS the chief officer = = i5s. - end Tor thst pun
,ea the Reprcseutatye OF the wGote Corporation ana
@ sr clearly Of opinion that this service was su'icsuf
ARD eaectual every member " the corporate o'y
b-se nrrscrsl cOuduc, such the inunct On Nts ne
srrei 70 control srd 20 whom the actual SnoN,dS' ~
IT, contents NAV Justly be imputed. Inst me ~ 'ii
srt SurteyanL AMI tee Aldeunt VINO sc;ed w.h ul'i
possessed this knowledge Is not denied ana L e'ea
seems thst they well knew what were the aie IN
the COMPLIANT itself They have resolved that tn rNa
cons alleged for the Injunction, were unlensoe N 'W
and urioUndcd IN isct" I: IA only in the conpains
however that these reasons are alleged, ana j. ttero
fore from the cpnplsut that tler knowledge or to'h
must have been derived. Under these circumstance
II would indeed be a mOckery OF justice % 'Tnlt AZ
legged IrsgulaIiy in the service al the inluhcnoh toe
cuse u deliberate and confessed violation -conie-se
we resp in the resolutions Of tue Aldermen, N.1o85u
rot n The arguments II thcir Counsel
Passing then from obicctous merely preliminary And
formal " e proceed 20 inquiry. which touches IA
measure he merits OF the motion hauiey' "Mc'A1'
the defendant Spirtsvant he's, IN TACT been guuiy o.
the contempt with which be Is charged and ths ne Ger
tiny has not unless he has committed some acl rom
which the Injunction, BY is terms or Is necessary con
s'ructcu commanded him absolutely % dcs,t ana &c
trrip IL Is true thai Mr. S'uricyant, ana thoc' NAo
srcl with him have publicly declared thai they under
stood the injunction il. the very sense nom WMch me
counsel fer the plaintf contends a. the ony sense Oh
which It's terms are susceptible Ana y l. $3.50 rue
hat thus UNDERSTANDING the Injunction they not Cay
d.recrrded but proceeded lar as depended on theu
own action, 90 rcsciud ami nully u but we slL' uot
hold that hcy are concluded by Their mistakes II ms
t,rusl fo~ uucss they have violated the injunction Ia
rs true legal couiruct1p tscre has been no breach Tor
which thcy are likely 20 De punished "a cont ''npr
whatever may be though, OF their intentions ana tneG
lsrCu'cc ,,.
What thcn. is thecouu and of the injunction WHAT
the corporate Gct which It's t'rms pruA1it l. We read
the complaint L IA ancst tngs ule sole ogect OF ll8
rrryer which the injunction exactly Followed wac to
ir,yerf tie abortion OF the resolution In relation q
Rsrond H. Broadway, which u alleged that the common
Council meant 20 reconsider eHd nad d't'rnlhei
.II.HN - HNf fNfHHr - uN
legations in the complaint con, with propue,y be
invoked 10 govern tie construction OF the lulm non,
and - therefore to tie terms OF the injunction tAHt IN
considering the question have proposed, We mean .
confne ourselves The language OF The injunction "a
clear end unambicuoUs. The corporate act, which It
prohibits IL that OF granting 20 Jacob sharp AMI has a.
socates 10 any other person, the authority ana PRIV"
Ice Of ryinr down double any other track for
rniivsy in Broadway between certain limits and il no
UGH rrpnt rs cCrpcratc act has been made the IN
junction has not been yloted-but the TACT tht such
rant has been made il udenmble. IL IL nor ony con
icased by ELL hut rvowcd aut glored IN by tbose VINO
made H. ard those who have obtained It. The resOiu
ucn making the grant, has been reconsidered AMI
adopted and in the very mode which II prescf'oes mas
been accepted hy the grantees and jacob sharp ana MS
afsocaies now claim 70 possess, by valid title, the
very rehf liberty, and privilege, which the Injunction,
sreskug the voice and carrying with IL the authority OF
this Court hes aid they should not permitted 70 ac'
Qure ~
The corporate act that the injunction prohibits has
been peri rned and Il therefore seems an aront To
common senge ~ say that the Injunction has not Deen
violated IL has been violated Just "a certainly ~ ~
express words had forbidden the passage Of the re5O
uti it was designed prevent We repeat, the in
junction has been violated and the only inquiry that 70
mains, il by whom It has been violated and who
Stunning have been rightully issued, amenabe; 20
this Court fer their contempt of IT, authority. II Idle
20 speak OF its violation merely corporate act for
which no member officer olthe Corporation Is or can
be liable We have already shown that an Injunction
may be properly directed 90 Corporation solely by is
corporate name and that when 80 directed Il operates TO
restrain the peTsOnd action Of every member OF the
CORPORATE body, by whose assent or coOperatnn the
corporate act that Is forbidden, may be accomplished
La the before W, the Injunction not only
minded the Board Of Aldermen and the Board OF Assist
not make the grant 10 Jacob sharp and his
ciGtes which t describes, but commanded each Alder
and each Assistant not 10 give his assent 70 any
such grant, if proposed for bis adoption not 10 give his
assent 70 i for the purpose and with theiuten OF rem
dofnc il operative and eferual a corporate act Tie
resolution adopted by the Common Council il the very
grant that the injunction describes, and 20 this grant
every Alderman who voted FOR the resolution with the
intent That II should take effect corporate act has
gwen his assent Every one Of them, therefore, who
has thus assentsd the conclusion IS plain and Irresistible
has done tie that the order OF the Court comm md
ed linn Dot do and BY dong has violated ts mandate
and condemned It's authority And unless this be true t
follows that when injunction directed by body consist.
ing Of several perrons commands them perform
JOINT although all unite IN PERFORMING the act no one ~
the breaks the Injunction of them IL liable 20 be
punished Two partners intend by their Joint sct 20 make
fraudulent transfer Of theg whole partnership property.
Res ectur their sign their creditors Tile complaint and
obtain srd injunction. by which the intended
sr the medilatod fraud Il strictly forbidden The
transfer IT, however made the fraud accomplished the
authority Of The CouTt decd and the guilty partners
in their iupuuity Neither Of them it seems, be
iached for the valid that the fraudulent transfer
the Of both and therefore the set Of neither Let 10
Be -sd that the supposed is not analogous tie
analogy truth perfect for il . not AZ all aec;ed or
ipsiIed BY the crcuus that the body which, the
present case he injunction was directed wasa corporation
not partuCrsLip.
TIE injunction In this case commanded the Common
Council not 70 make certain grant 10 certain persons The
Cor Council Aas ucde the grant yer told the
iunct as not been broken fbrOken has been bro
ben BY the Common Council alone the two boards forming
the body, rnd not a. al by the individual nefnb by
whose concurrent votes the grant as corporate
adopted and Effected. In conclusion, the whole argument
y manifest depends upon the ruth Of proposition With
which started namely that Injunction directed 20
corporate body Is binding upon the individual conscience
resrsirs the individual action OF each Of is members.