The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-02-04
THT BROADWAY RAILROAD CASE.


rsOaahy Of New York.
Before Hon. Judges Doer Campbell, Bosworth, and
SPEECH OF NIX. JOHN VAN buren,, ON BEHALF OF
TIE PLAINTIFFS, on THE NOTION FOR ATTACH
.EsT 40 AISsT THE ALDERMEN, FOR coSTEArr.,
Mr.. VAN buren, rose and said:-May it please the
Cowt-The papers upon which we move against
6tGrtevant and others, for an attachment, are the
original summons, complaint, and injunction, and
the afidayits showing the breach OF the injunction
and the order to show cause served in the action
These papers have been handed up TO the Court
Ar Van B. then proceeded TO state the substance Of
the papers)
Mr.. FIELD who appeared for Alderman Sturte
want, then rose and said In opposition, sir to the
complaint, we offer the following afidavits:--
Elx-Chief Justice BRONsoN.-Haye you any papers
TO read in answer to the question whether you have
or have not violated the Injunction
Mr.. FIELDING read them in answer to Mr.. Van
Buren,.
question sirl
Mr.. FIELD.-We read these atidavits in support of
cur
They propose to read sir papers, that they right
upon the merits. The Court has already disposed OF
that question.
Mr. FELp.-n Jon can argue upon the merits
MChief Justic BnoSsoN.-There is not one word
IN those papers about the breach OF the injunction
Hon. Judge DUER-We cannot say whether they
arc pertinent or not, until they have been read.
kChef Justice BRoNsoN.-(To Mr.. Field. Are
they pertinent?
Mr. FIELp-Eyery one Is pertinent upon the ques-
lion OF contempt.
The learned counsel then proceeded to read the
afhdavits of the grantees, Jacob Sharp and others.
Mr.. VAN buren, then rose and said-If the Court
please your honors will find handed up with the
papers series OF printed propositions, to which, in
the main, shall coItine myself ought perhaps to
say an excuse for not abiding at all to the aida
wits upon the other side, that from the time they
were served upon us, on Thursday, up to this period,
have been unable c how they have the slight
est bearing upon this particular motion; and it was
r that reason that one Of my associates objected to
their being read. and for the same reason highly pro-
bable that shall hardly have occasion to alnde to
them in the suggestions have to make to the Court
in relation to this motion. read to the Court, in
the outset the complaint itself showing the various
grounds of right which were set forth by the plain
ills, and the relief that they asked. 1t will be for
the other side to show why not entitled to it,
They claim that We have not made out a case Of ia-
risdicton in this court and upon the propositions
with which we set out, that the Court has jurisdic
tOn over corporations well rnatural persons,
we have cited authorities, for presume it will
hardly be controversial We certainly madea case
against ordinary parties. We certainly made
ease against natural persons We certainly
made against persons standing in
representative capacity OF gross breach OF trust,
az we supposed, ard which authorized to obtain
relief and under which judge having jurisdiction Of
the subject matter, and OF the parties, granted
order, which has been disobeyed and the dsobe
dience to which the Court are now to consider. We
say, the plaintiffs complained that an injury
about to be done to their legal rights, by wrongful
act OF the defendants, and prayed that the defend
ants might be restrained from doing that act. No
thing further necessary to give jurisdiction and
it was then for the Court to judge and decide wheth
er proper made for granting the relief
which the plaintiffs asked. And when a court has
jurisdiction its judgment or order is never void how
ever erroneous it may be. Now, the idea that the
officers OF this ccrporatOn-that these Aldermen,
and Assistants-these two boards, constituent parts
Of the corporation-were not parties to this suit, and
were not operated upon by this injunction, seems to
me suggestion which would 60 to relieve officers OF
all corporations, and necessarily and consequently,
the corporation itself from all responsibility for the
violation OF an order Of the Court. In a
proceeding against corporation to guard against
an act OF the corporation, whatever it may be, yoa
must make the corporation parties and not the in
dividual members; and If, when You obtain an in
junction under the circumstances the only persons
who can set the corporation in moti0n-the only ac-
tive agents OF IA body which is poweress Of itself,
can violate that injunction with impunity then, of
o0Crse these corporations beyond the restraint of
Che Court. We suppose that Il not the case with re-
gard to the corporation of New York, to bank
corporation, or to any Others. Now, we have not I'M
dertaken to cite authorities OF which there a
great many. to sustain the propositon-that when
Court acquires jurisdiction, their proceedings are
not void. however erroneous they may be, which is
true in even OF limited jurisdiction. For ey-
ample, where officer is authorized to issue at
tachIDent. and he proceeds upon insufficient evil
dence, II he has some evidence upon which to act he
acquires jurisdiction, and his action il not void
There are q large class Of cases OF that kind. 3d.
also, in regard to great variety of cases
which have come before this and the sa-
Prcme Court; the same principle has been
held over and again. There are cases
OF limited jurisdiction, and the before the
court is OF general jurisdiction, where the parties
are subject to the general jurisdiction Of the court.
We ray further that the resolution which the Com
mon Council was about TO pass was, in proper
serse Of the term an act OF legislation 1t was not
law, but a contract. 1t was what the Common
Council itself called grant Bat IS It was material
TO consider whether it was Il law grant that
question upon which the court was to Judge and
if It erred in Judgment, still its order valid until
IL should be reversed vacated Now it is not only
the Common Council that call this resolution a
grant, but the grantees, in accepting it, and ia the
aftdavts read in their behalf, call it grant through
out Mr. V. b. then referred 10 the aidavit and the
resolutions Of the Common Council. and pro-
reeded Presently il viii be proper to call at
tention to the fact that the power to license
Is unqualiiedly in the Mayor and this agree
ment that they entered into without the assent
and against the prohibition OF the Mayor-who Is
not only an integral part of the corporation but
the portion which has the unqualified authority to
license is, in the 18th section, nothing nor less
than agreement that the Mayor shall license. The
resolution then provides in the 18th subdivision for
the incorporation Of the associates. And here |
would say there Is very serious doubt as to the author
ity Of the corporation to create a corporation,
II they should proceed in legitimate mode, bit they
think they can do it by resolution and the only ele
ment OF a corporation wanting in the 18th subdivi-
SION, is perpetuty and that is given by the llth.
The 18th provision IS very curious and extgaordi-
nary one
The associates whose are - forth in this reao
luton, shall by writing filed with the clerk OF the Com
mon Council signify their acceptance thereof aud agree
TO conform thereto all new associates or assigns dulv
admitted according the provisions of the article Of
sociation and by laws shah be deemed parties
agreement
In reading. in connection with theie provisions
the acceptance Of this agreement and the execution
Of it, we regard 1t, by the parties Of the
other part, the Court will see precisely
what the nature of the transaction is. Now
IT would to to be very great waste
of time to undertake to show to the Court that this
resolution cannot be deemed law. ] suppose would
hardly be authorized to call the attention the Court
10 the form IN which the Common Council do legis-
late; but II the Court have any curiosity upon that
point and there Is strictly technical objection to
Ordinances. the form which throu annnn