The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-01-07
The Panama Mail steamship and Rail-
road Controversy.
COMMON PLEAS.
Roforo Hon JndCn nal,

The Panama Mail steamship and Rail-
road Controversy.
COMMON PLEAS.
Before Hon. Judge DAILY.
JAN. 6-Horace r. Clark and Ei,odrd ~ Dickerson
Trustees for ne United States Mil Steamship CJmpasy, and
Albert G. Soo vs. George Ldo the North Atlantic NeamAip
Company, the Panama Railroad Company and Marshall
Robcrts.-This suit commenced by tho plaintiffs a.
trustees Of the United States Mail Steamship nc under
trust which expired October 1852 the purpose OF
obtaining judgment declaring that Mr. Law acqairei
title 70 the wharf and buildings thereon, at AspinwA
now used as landing place by the steamers Baltic and
Atlantic, belonging 10 the North Atlantic Steamship Com
pany (Which Mr. Laws lessee Of the premses US trus
tee OF the United States Mail Steamship Limo TO compel
convey 70 the present accordingly and -
obtain an injunction restraining the occupation
Of the premises BY the North Atlantic Steamship Company
during the tendency Of the suit and temporary injuac
ton had been obtained accordingly which, on the coming
in Of the answers aud aer argument was dissolved By
the following decson:-Mr Esarts and Me- RApallo for
p!aiutfs Mr.. Ashmead and NJ. R,biison for Mr. Law
Mr.. Larocquo and Mr.. Barlow for the North Atlantic
Steamship Company; Mr. Eaton and Mr.. Davis for tho
Panama Railroad Company
by the Court DAILY, J-yhe use to which the premises
applied, and the fact that the trustees expended
the Of years adapt them to that
obtained by Law for the benefit Of and part Of the
trust estate; but this presumption by what Is
stated in the II IL ayerred in the complaint-bu.
only Information and bee-that the Panama Railroad
Company permitted the trustees TO make Of the land
and Of the water privileges upon Navy Bay, with the
view of ndncng them 70 their 70 that place.
and upon the understanding that they would suita
BILE improvements upon the land and would run their
steamers there. This is positively denied In the
Of the Panama Railroad Company, who
aver, on the contrary, that the negotiation for
purchase Of their interest in the land with Law
his personal capacity and that the therefor
was the n, on the part OF Law that ne would aid
them with his capital and experience in continuing their
roadthen in process Of erecon-and that be would in
y the aso N the
mtted the trustees 70 the land upon the understand
ing that they would make suitable Improvement, aud run
their steamers Navy Bay &C He also positively
that neither the trustees the United States Nail steam
ship Company nor the Panama Railroad Company ever
claimed pretended, that the rusteesever had any title
or claim TO the land that he did trnstee in
violation OF his duty, procure TO be placed IN mis-
name any properly whatever in which the trustees had
either legal equitable title He ayers on the
contrary, that IN the month o: June. 1881, no
requested by parties Interested In the con
struction of the Panama Railroad to take an IN +,
terest In tho construction Of that road and that
nduccment thereto understanding was had between
t S% sp such so9 40 n. he might sss scs ON land
Navy Bay " be conveyed 10 MIN tor DIS va exclusive
benefit That in tina month OF July following he invested
in the bonds Of the company 70 the amount OF
$500 600 and selected the laid IN question: That on the
18th Of May 1852 resolution was passed tbat the land so
selected be- given hun, which ON the l2th OF Decsmoer
following was approved by the Executive Committee OF
The Company, ana the President WAS au,hpz;d 70 pre-
pare deed him That he did not danaai deed until
November, 1852 when resolution was passed directing
the President Of the Company 10 execute deed 70 him,
which accordingly executed on the 9th OF November
1880 There nothing in the AFFIDAVIT or SOFT incOusst
ent with what here averred which be regarded
az dsprovng and respects the rgo to m Injunction
IL might be sufsent stop here and declare that the
of he
pears still conclusive from subsequent averments
IN the Of law Where court OF equity nterposes
compel trustee TO give up properly purchased IN bis
name tor his benefit which belonged or right
fully belongs TO the estate does in aid of aud 10
waker6 WIS.,, 67o Hatch Hatch, i'd 800; Ssorys
Equity Jurp Pp 81 s2a 10 TINS case the cs qm
Albert G. soo is averred in Laws answer that he was
the Of lS2 shares of the stock OF that company on
the 18th Of March, 1884, that that day be sod these
shares Marshall o. Roberts OF his co trustees sab
ject certain covenants and condons and that ne re-
signed and ceased to be trustee on tine 4h OF April
following Among the covenants and conditions subject
to which the sale to Roberts the following
That Roberts should well and truly keep all the cove
nanis entered into on his part that ING ua,ted ssres
have the privilege, Tar the privilege Vas vested In
Law landing and receiving freight and passengers a.
spon the premises in question the in which tho
then used by the steamships run BY the rs
mani contract a. the tenants Of Law without the payment
any other rent than the keeping Of the wharf and
sorehouse in as good repair az they were then IN ana
might be lawfully imposed upon the premises, and that
upon these conditions be- Law let and demised the premi
to 20 keep them repair, pay all taxes assessments
AND lawful charges It the expiration Of the 70
surrender up the premises 70 Law hs heirs and assns
Roberts sold the 1882 shares 10 the United States Nail
Steamship Company, upon their agreeing 70 assume and
condions above stated entered into by him with Law,
which sale was consummated and perfected By unani
%oas rssouton me oara Of ,s ~ .ne Unsd
1852 instrument under his hand and SEAL released
and discharged Law from all claims or demands against
him, growing Of anything done by him under the
us and IL further sverred that pars Of the expendi
sold he shares 70 Roberts and in leu Of rent and
that the remaining part ma e under and in conform
~ with the covenants assumed by the United States Mail
Steamship Company In Roberta place and stead.
From these avermens appears that the cet qut trusts
il they bad any claim TO these premises under
the trust have reDQuished and have distinctly recog
n'zed against themselves Laws exclusive ownership
and property IN the premises. The United States Nail
ias's tenant and he pcror snco Of covenant which
bound them " surrender up the premises TO him at she
expi alton Of the which has expired and Soo
has released ana discharged him from all obligations Of
any Kind under the trust The ce gus trusts not OF
that class Court OF Equity wat ,hes with such
vigani guarois bship not " permit them 70 transfer
or dispose Of their tight They for themselves
(Suart Krnam, Barb, C., 4ea), aud their acts
SHOW very clearly tai they, The parties ultimately nts
10 these premises If they had that they ill.,
for Ds which were satisfactory 70 them, % REIN
qush IT, ID averred that the United States
Mail Steamship Company knew the fact 70 DO
~ stated in the OF Law and IL
this cannot be claimed that they assumed the
relation OF Laws tcpant and the perform ance OF the
covenant entered into by Roberts, ignorant of the nature
OF their rights The release OF Sloo shows that was en-
after suit had been instituted by him Ans
the United States Court, and that general
comprehensive could be, discharging Law
ir, oil claims demands Of every kind and nature in
Law ecui
Of any matter, or thing, from the beginning Of the
world 10 the day Of the date Of FMS release from which
Mail Steamship Company, acted unterstandingly
the ces qi trusts stand In such position this and
were AZ bold they were competent 70 place themselves
such position, (brce VS. Stokes, H. Mes 3t9) 10
not sec what CLAIM their trustees have, VINO are
merely The representatives. OF their rights aud interests
he answer % Law Is, in my opinion, fill aud
nnfia nf