New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-04-11

psby, but be had power to restrain them from sct
ing .e Cerpsry n tre exercise OF their s,rpersts
p0sefs. he was therefore sshsisd that It you'd b.
I wssre Of tine TO hear aSy farther argument upon
tbs ssii jet The motion for receiver mus, be de-
MED ana n INJUNCTION be confined to the persoai
acts OF the d.fsnr ans
Sr Cisrk isid that a be- lndsrstosd tie Court
bic Honor denied the plaintiffs application fjr
ceiytfstp, and tL'ed the spplics uOu for isaao-
IT, f,r IL might Interfere WITH the 1eioa OF ths
Con psEy but be ubdsrtood bis Honor also TO ratsn
the niurcos far as II restrained the defendants
f,om spproEristirg 10 hen own use the property Of
The Company. They ha1 to protest axsiss, his
Honor's determining thst such state OF thtags
s.ed without bearing counsel on their side By such
an implication very great injustice would be done 10
80 respectable body of men IS we're engaged 10 the
direction CT any Fl th. great works OF the country.
II seemed to him plain that the Court should Dissolve
the injucctien entirely
HE Honor said that he must not be UNDERWOOD IS
Mr Clark said thst il his Honor supposed that there
VISA any shscow OF ground requiring his nterfe eucs
AZ snst them, they you'd like t. be heard Tney
would desire 20 know whether this Court had any
vsi,orisl powers whatever over this foreign corpo-
ration.
Mr. Cu,ting thought that The conduct Of the defend
ants not obnoxious "a any ceIsurs and that they
would bat lily deserve any such implication M that
tbrosr upon them.
M Stoushton made an Argument to show that the
defendants had maDif-sly trsnsgessed their charter
especially in the purchase OF stock with tina fuass
OF TIE Company Tney could not have done this IS DE-
rector; il inusS hsvs Teen A. Individuals
His Honor adhered 20 his orgins dic.un. tia. he
could entertain such proposition without consider
irg the charter OF the Company.
M StVushton then argued Inst ihstws not legal
corporation, because no Government by incovporst-
ing citizens of another Government could biol ito
own citizens to respect the Incorporation Of such
Company.
The Judge reiterated biz decision.
Mr. Clak ssid that for the last four or Eve days
ever thing had been said on the other side. They
asked fer cos's.
Iiis Homer said fist the error ia granting the
ir iuD ction os nLiiy upon the complain. - framed.
He should allow the to abb 10 the event of ths
suit Mr. Clark could at any time spply for leave 20
pro.ecute the tosrd. He denied the application for
costs because he had not decided the cause upoa its
q erts. The decision now mace was not 10 bs con
siseIed absr TO ANY right tho plaintiff light have
% amend.
Nr Clark said that he WAS requested by Mr.. Mel
sor Robinson 10 make statement. TO the Courl in
pect TO the manner in which the affidavit was oo-
tAiT ed from him.
His Hopor said that the case was decided he could
not hear The eIp laDasion.
The orcsr is a. follows
On reading and flirg the complaint and afidsvts OF
ths cesndsns and others 10 their behalf and sso
the psyt of the plaintiff II IL ordered, on motion Of
sanford Porter and Stryker. ia behalf Of ths de-
fndspts that the motion for receiver b. denied and
that The ibjuDcton ordered msds be dissolved, aud
the motion continue the same be denied; thus deei
zion to be without prejudice 10 the RICH. of the plain
TIFF TO apply 70 amend bis complaint by bringing In
other psrnes rs he may be advised, aad without
prejudice TO his right TO move Tor an Injunction sfeer
such an amendment hes been made. Ccas 10 ABIDE
the event of said Amendment and application Tor a
new il junction. If made and granted. Is not to prejl
dice the defendants TO apply for order Of references
10 ascertain the damages sustained by thsm byreassn
of the injunction row ordered dissolved.
The case viii We hear. be amended inuoolatelyj
,no prosecuted with as little delay as possible.