New-York daily tribune., 1859-05-23


0a;s' H. cSs osfS| = :1 as:sFss sssS. ,'a =
sneips with the knO~eSse and bound By he a' o.
principle s:,s no . .PSf,o2 ss vo, sf,f M II bms m:iG
To bod Company Iesponsi1e I II Ell as ae,s o rs so ~
a.r hsrscter woub sanction the sOs'es; 'sad and
tbs, general Proposition va. fhs an ssi -. s ~ % a.
oser a corporation may bDo he asr In al cases wnae'ef
especially in which be Profses 70 represent hops
IA 10 ac relation % T., And shown ,ns: 'he
SnoidSs oftl ofeer was cou1municaed tse Company i
10 ~ .ssisnt 20 .ct s right. wincbr.,er and Lennon
Al Baumore sDd susq Railroad Co, May an hPi ~ :h,c
n no .: OF circ9st.pce show that any ohoeI oi ma ,
pany has been ofcisly advised in regard 70 me
That y thing exists by which e COMPANY c:te sd , hse seea
duced have nsae inquiry ~ or Sae Seee to this corporaon
- Is5 nv he law Of his stete which dsprYes It oi me
sd.:lss ,s,s Z e.:te ts the Dfeccr, " those
snposd npSu d9y Of plo..eGs the PJSGpss q he me-
trssts Il ihs ockhdes; and ,ha, all that may be done io
The p.Isons ~ 1sssrsa w the Utos. di.t,a
The Deeto are hs PT'ca wh9m He Pc or
n he s.psrsi rule u law as in The Of the
nsd s' G c9g 49, ss'ss aseosd cS%psn
that there be ocial notice given % oind te
Tis could not be controyeed II az ehot was '1 ~ bsd
become concerned, had employed 'heH means III W
se.isp Of this rule 70 protect peons in hat condition
not whom the law nPaes aand IN aci or by c0H
Dean the the land at me time Of ne
ganiz,tion Of The corporation M not me IL" ny me time Of
The subscription the stock They being entitled 70 ne eeI
cats were eectusy, indeed more concusvey ooto sn
by formal notice 20 Of the directors who does not advise h
conpa, The creation Of officers, directors sc was by them
TRey sherma Dean had notice The corporation pat
in9 esspev o. them. They were heroekhodc aud aboed
Win Court ofEquity look forms in total dressrd Of the
yubsnts rights psresl On the contrary does Dot snch
Cout alvey res ,nd Gndo9b.d merits OF all cono
vcT,ies upiet,ercd By technical rules Of law! -
sheod this Couit determine that because they Sherman
have made seS az o & snd The law viii pfoec, them
xrrs injustice would be done the complainant 80 I as ey
and no principle equity usfes interpolation In their faVoI
Independent Of the already snssesed me
ton 20 dissolution Of the injunction The motion 10 dissolve
TPO s does sn6 S es an the defendants
swer the read as evidence II me
Gaze Under circumstances canno, look 70 ;hcn the
swers with Of giving them the least efficacy ey,-
spce s, though they sy be directly responsive 70 the bill
xssh 81 + 81. :Ts., ine "ss ans 10 sS ~oh viii T refer e'
th Cou forbidden 70 look AZ the answers ss evidence
s,,syn Casi Company other than Sherman De the tes
ony of Shoemaker being obviously wholly insufficient or the
The of 1852 chapter W pr9yide that no answer any
% & 70 sy s OIL . DT Pfo bp nes nc asan
coinPsnsus unless BY the bill or petition ,u snsws shall be
ponden,s unless the hearing, he complainant or con-,
pansnis shall read me snswe, as evidence in % winch co.. 4
Il had been required to be made under oath ..,.,-
According TO Of Wnches.r& Lennon sg baltimore
and Rroao Company the bill does not require
the deendatto be under OATH the answer cannot
be evidence against the complainant and under the
the bin complaint be assumed to be
being the law bow this Court iudiciay know that
any parties the owners Of sCck except Sherman Dean
and they holding frsaduleny as a,eTred IN the o 40 bo5
seh but who they are de-: ;s. NJ appeal oe .o
and indeed not such TO be- regarded
in evidence, and to be available, necessary TO- be
believed that by the recent case Of Warren agt T~ey
reported In 10 Maryland @ different construction has been
that lint
Cou Of Appes' did not design iPusn in the least the case to
reference to the Of evidence has not changed
the practice regarded the eec Of when eause al
The case Is not before me or ausi bearing motion
.,s The he sc u bs, ;ntS S % s e the for
Hnsl hearing All ooubt however Is removed from my p no
by the Tsgsa sst BodeD Tbayer 10 Maryland Rep
fi3 where the point IN question Is determined
In that the bill do no, call for an answer under oh ana
Sn read % as ,1n S The % an & tim a;G
Ss Us us tS ss. T Warren "s Yielding as establishing
such would on when the is set down for
hearing bill and only.
The next question omission Of svonents
The bill alleges the facts "upon information and belief and
for this insisted that the injunction should not nave
ssie 20 decide The question whether there exists in the b and
testimony sufficient 10 justify this Court in 'he refusal 70 ooie
the ipjuncon complainant has made ali application 10
Regarding purchase madeby sherman Dean from the the
complain amend the bil as 70 veJ oe ~ % %
spect becomes unimpor,ant ,,,, -. J.. ill.,
the exercise OF sound on oeh' 70 auoW
The amendment, In order to remove the difficulty. .
feel myself naded by authority IN coming 70 t con
csion the rule not as stated in srenmen 'h tne case
the popey granting the Injunction on 'he equity
appearing in the original bill ., ,u,
material allegations Of the bill yet If it disclosed equity Of
which the plaintiff may avail himself by snendmen the nllnc
w be- continued !" Maryland Chsnc Prse, ~ vide zGi
For the reasons assigned this opinion decided that
the entitled relief upon the bl and testimony
before having shown ITSELF P'"d Jde'e entitled 10
decree. .,,.. -, -. .o..-... .,o,,, 10 ,r,.oo.o,
against the Defendants pending the contest
and until that right determined 0eiser ag Green Gill; 4la
II the defendants owing the relation they sustain 10 the
have guilty of fraud fact by construction
of law and that the deed TO them should 90 vacated
by the allowance Of the the continuance Of the
juncon for doubt that in toe absence OF process
M eli coal hch might have taken by them before the final
decree Of the Court Aud should the canse in thsr
nvor the law has provided all proper security 10 ndehy
Hwhen AL answer equity Of which the complain
may himself by amendment no reason why
such amendment should be permitted when seen by
the hil and testimony they have equity .,... .o..
exs state Of facts ju'es the exercise OF the eqns
bie jurisdiction Of this Court
ed The excavation Of coal 10 be prevented That the
thing which constitutes 1t. gre valGo And having shown At
not ~ be permitted now to remove that which constitutes It's
real worth.
also urged that the injury complained Of is bu, cspsss
OF waste, and could no, be prevented BY an in junction.
The general rule well Understood BE-, that for acts
3. left their remedy law stsrme Mann JchnsOn's
Ch Rep' q Armstrong as- suksniri GIN John 46s
works mine the injury of the because It operates
sn,.S % 10 s S % Py %ns and IN 9on ss ~us dS~
,ss ps, E % Ss sk CIV R lis
amendment when such shall have been made viii then
Maryland aHegsGns Co~nty to -I hereby certify the
70 ss Il. 's sSPy COM s ns SP,oS oy sa NO.
Ia testimony whereof hsreup,o ,os.cries name, and