New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-02-03
JUDGE DAVIES on SIBERIAN AND
OTHERS.

w .hND
OTHERS.
We have hitherto given an account OF the pro-
ceedings in the remarkable case Of the Cumber-
land Coal Con psny against Allen N. Sherman and
Others. That account included statement OF tie
allegations contained in the plaintiffs bill, and
also in certsin sffdsyits put in BY the defendants
The result Of the first hearing was 70 dismiss the
bill a, to the Hoffman Coal Company, which had
been made a party 10 il; that dismissal being
based on the ground that, being an Incorporation
under the laws Of Maryland, and not being shown
to have shy property in He~-iork, the Court had,
as to that party, DO jurisdiction. Leave, however,
was given to amend and 70 proceed against the other
defendants. 1heIeupon, the plaintiffs filed sup
Elementary BILL in which they included as defend
ant one PoStey, who, along with Sherman,
Dean and two others, constituted the Holman
Mining Company; all tie 5000 shares, at 500
each of the stock Of that company, except ten,
being held by Sherman and Dean and majority
of all the shares by Sherman himself
The main allegation Of the bill, it will be recol
ected, was that Sherman, then the most active
member of the Cumberland Company, and em-
ylo, ing as was alleged, Mehsfey, the then Pres-
dent of it his tool had procured the conveyance
to himself and Dean Of very valuable portion OF
the COmpany's coal lands for nominal considers-
ton of $4,000, none Of which had been paid
Though it had been falsely represented By the
President in bis report to the stockholders, that
the same had been paid in each, and applied to take
mp outstanding bonds of the Company; and fur
ther, that simultaneously with this conveyance of
lard, Sherman and Dean obtained from the Cum
berand Company an agreement to transport tie
coal of the lands sold at rates which Melted loss
to the Company for every tun Of coal carried; and
that subsequently, Sherman and Dean, with three
others. had organized themselves, under general
law Of Maryland, as the Hoffman Coal Company;
the lands and transportation contract being con-
veyed to this Company, and the stock OF it dlstrb.
uted and held as above mentioned.
Upon the strength Of these allegations, the bill
prayed that the deed and contract above described
might be declared fraudulent aud void as to the
Cumberland Coal Company, and that the same be
delivered up to be cancelled and that pending this
suit, the defendants be enjoined from selling
signing their stock in the Hoffman Company, or
doing anything TO prejudice the interests of the
plaintiffs.
The supplemental bill alleged that the new de-
PENDANT, Postey, was President Of the Hoffman
Company, and had the custody of the deed and
contracts and further, that the defendant, Dean,
was a clerk in an othce with one William Petit,
who. along with Sherman and the late Presicen of
the Cumberland Company, had constituted the act
ing portion of the Committee upon whose recon-
merdation the land had been sold that he WAS
person of little OF NO pecunisry responsibility and
that he held his interest in the Hoffman Company
in secret trust for some of the persons who were
Directors of the Cumberland Company when the
deed and contract were made
In reply, the defendants, Sherman, Dean and Post
ley, put in afidsvits denyins generally all the ale
cations of fraud. Sherman and Dean denied having
known anything of each other till they met to con-
animate the arrangement b. executing the papers.
There il no denial in the afdsyits that the price at
which the lands were sold was grossly inadequate
nor that the President represented in his report to
the stockholders that the consideration had been
paid in cash, and applied to hquidate the debts OF
the Company; nor was it alleged that this false
representation was afterward corrected; but 1t
was alleged that meeting of the stockholders
held year aterward, fully ratified the sale and the
contract except TO some provisions of the later
which were modified in acco rdance with suggestions
then made. 1t was also alleged that Sherman was
solicited BY several of the stockholders to purchase
the land and that, but for his participation the
purchase, the lands could not have been SOLD.
Sherman insists that he is pecuniariy responsible
but the adayits say nothing in that respect shout
Dean.
Upon this state Of facts, the question came up
before Judge Davies whether the temporary IN
junction granted upon the fling Of the comPla
should bs dissolved or should be continued pending
the suit; and that, as Judge Davies stated in CIV
ing judgment, depended upon whether or not the
plaintiffs had made on; prima faeie case. The
Judge held, in the first place, that considering the
relation Of Sherman and Dean to the Hoffman
Company, that Company, and the defendant Post
lev, as its President must be considered privy to
whatever Sherman and Dean knew, and as having
no rights in the case which did not spper.Ain to
sherman AID Dean. lie held in the second plsee,