New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-06-25

had be- guilty of fraud warranted the ALLEGATIONS Of
The ground fraud i there Be- no pref oi sud a Ps9
til In tai. case me nsh 20 iseSvt
BE- tafsl As corporate and VII Their the fsnd tnt
10 be cor BY ding the proof gwen Of Schly
ler fraudulent conduct IN Eafaens the ou"n.s' u AS W
dpa. ,..-.u... -. T.. dawn from ia
terms or purpos be ard Is a. mach e A OF DC
defendant a. any cerheste that hss been issued by TIE Io
Nv ie res min nuine stock. The Panf toCk ose'ns
10 what psTpor;s to be- nd Their acton oAsq upOh az
thso hs a. sa oS NEE ae ssf and hat the
from assertrg The contrary Far ~ ne quesoo Of W.
ty o 's ss es 70 ~ s value Of he concerned
If certificate represented genuine stock shd tne
70 hemseses on books Of the Company an action Of a.
, W. have sesine the Company for the refusal a.
be III Of The psni actions had such names they
loie Nor he Code Com Bank oil bunAo asI hoIsh
sneb Az action Is based on the implied pronie
raised BY that the Company will perform a. duties which
In h. case the aaron based the assumption, far
the ih 70 be eompersated in ds 'sss concerned that n2
TF st,s thsf e defendant refas,d either to per-
ap transfer Of it on s books pay the psin.I the al
oasny part Of the advance sde BY them on the h Of
the Of Kyes ownership, alleging that II was haudn'
lepily Issued and represented 10 genuine stock.
The plaintiffs they AL do not recover nAkedJ on
the round that such fraud has been committed bat In spite
ofi They recover il al not be the certificate does
not r. genuine stock but because, although does not
M s and Of by the fits Transfer
Asent, and what wa. ne BY HIM IN u; act A .,o.d
the decision in Bodge sgt the city Of Batab MO, 10 Nc
sE Company % Eng End Exr r. 1857 and in other kindred
cases. In th5se actions the plaintiff was party to contract
rorston icing pnte act the plaintiff presumed 70 know
the extent the defendants powers and that the contract to
authority and, theitfore, Illegal and void.
Neither t affected by the rule eppied to h1 cas- o. 94ses
cOpO alton, anl the
contract though gotnbe s character is upon It's face one
M al eass The Timer ebsraeer the and
in Of the stter every party into who's hss n "a
i %ss gone in Judgment Of Jaw ''' '''' mat Il
In the present ease there is nothing on the face Of se oeTta
in the circumstsnces under hh tn paatg TOOK -
70 induce suspicion that the agent had been uniaha 20 m
SBa psIol a5 ~ii he 'fe s1 da ~
One taking bank note IA The ordinary course Of business
amount limied b. aw h'd been isud ana was "a
would ground 20 suspect thai the Issuing OF was
issSi Of ibe certificate in question ao
Cen there any doub Of the right OF the holder Of sueh
bill to redeemit there any more doubt OF the HsHt Of the
plaintiffs to recover in this easel
tlink the judgment should be affirmed on the grounds
Frat That the certificate Schuyler acting
within the scope of bis powers as ssen and me issuing
Second That bJ intrusng m that Of business
and holding him out 10 the world as me ohcr py whom ne
Company would Tausaei represented his Official ac 70 be
entitled 10 credit and responsible for his fidelity in that
7h;d any person. whom certidc VI Of STOCK Issued
BY ,uch aicer in ht us1 form aud oy nm IN
BY the Company thai the facts are ss tny INN
be- and much authorized 70 Purcha relying on th uuln
Of that peseListOn reliant Is 10 sell upon the repre-
senation Of third pefson that the Ve1Gee Is my ..
Fourth That purchaser good faith ior value, an IN the
I
nroves 10 have hem adueny ssued is entitled recover his
a,mages the Company if they refu.e to permit II nse OF
vance that be charged with having been neg
gent with If due caution 10 having the GER
fcae Of the proper officer without inquiry wn
nothing la the crcumsaDces under which the SOCK was
him relsng 20 the person 0nsnng Us or 10 we
Of the stock offered Justly calculated 70 excite ne
suspicion Of prudent snd cautious that the officer OF the
Copsny had departed from his duty in issung or thai the
holder had entity of sny improper practice IN obtaining
JUDGE CAMPBELL next gave hls views lie consid-
cred thar the Company Is not Table, that the amount OF stock
could be by The Company ana therefore could not
be by the agent The whole mster rests the allegation OF
Of any stock the cehcae was merely chea ana
lett fTsuoulent document by which ne procured the
personally liable In order to make the phncp liable know
edge Of the freud must be brought home must be shown
have the Of the principal and not Of the agent
Of this kind analogous 20 that OF the captain " YES
sci signing e BIZ of ladng-bhs of Gding In some measure
transferable The captain is in general way the agent OF
the owner vet the liable for ia bills OF ladng
signed Judge cited decisions in England to show this - be
the rule die Considered that the p nth was not entitled 10
and that the judgment should be reserved
Judge OAKLEY llaie Chief Justce then presented
oral remarks He said that he would confess hat the concu
son he has entirely sactory TO hinset He
considered that the duty OF Transfer Clerk should no. De 70
been surrendered and the transfers properly made Inc
admitted thst Mr. Schuyler was fully authorized TO
issue certificates Of stock Tie Judge said that he ha been
IMPRESSED with The arguments of bis brother Campbell as
the of vessel being liable for fraudulent bills OF
The Jude concur ed with majority Court and said
order would be entered confirming the judgment al special
Tenn, with costs.
CASE OF THE HARLEM RAILROAD CO.
The decision on the appeal to the alleged Kyle
eud rendered Saturday The Judges said in
to question of Sanford that understood should
remain III. after the dechion Of the New Haven case.
APPEAL AS TO CASTLE GARDEN.
Mr.. Moves solicited that the Court would hear the
the appeal to The occupation Castle Garden as
depot engs The General Term will sit for the hear
log Of arguments this week