Civilian & telegraph. [volume] (Cumberland, Md.) 1859-1875, 1862-06-12

sale and transportation contract. That on
September 30th, 1857, the day said deed oil
trust was made, said Sherman, on a fair set.
Element of accounts between complainant and
himself, was actually its debtor to an amount
exceeding two thousand dollars. on an ac-
count called Loan Account, while the sched-
ule attached to said deed of trust, includes
him as a preferred creditor Of complainant,
under said deed to an amount exceeding
SIG, 800 that the Indebtedness, in said sched-
ule stated to some other parties was only ap-
parent and not real and much of it amply
secured by collaterals, before the execution OF
said deed, which latter was unnecessary for the
purpose.
The Bill then states, that said deed of trust
was unnecessary for the protection of COM
plainant's creditors, and fraud upon their
rights; and mainly resolved upon by the
Board OF Directors at the instance of Sher-
man, Mehafiey and Bloodgood, apparently for
the benefit OF creditors as well as OF the Com
pauy, but really, in order to continue the
power and control of omplainants funds and
business involved and diminished by their
fraudulent misconduct and detention of its
money and property in their hands that said
Sherman, Mehutiey and BIoodgood, hy their
iniudcous, unauthor izcd and improper eX-
pcudituges of its means to large amount had
caused serious embarrassment in the prosecu.
ion VI It's business, anu II ltlINIt ~ IuCCl
promptly its liabilities; that they were pre-
sent nj special meeting Of the Directors of
complainant at its office in New Ycrk, on Sep
tember 2Sth, 1851, and at an adjourned meet
ing OF same at same place next day, partici-
pating in all the proceedings, at which the
preparation and execution Of this deed of
trust was directed and resolved on, and il was
so resolved on, professedly, by said Mehaifey,
Bloodgood and Sherman as the best mode Of
protecting complaiuan's property during its
then financial d difficulties, from sale and sacri-
flee, until its liabilities could lie deferred and
arranged, without the necessity OF any sale OF
any of its valuable property. That with this
view extraordinary powers were conferred on
said Trustees, and MehafIey, Bloodgood and
Sherman were selected as such Trustees, be-
cause they offered to act without any addi-
tional charge for their services, or Compensa
ton, other than what they might receive as
officers OF said Company in the positions they
then held. That said deed OF trust was made
to them the next day, to wit; September 3oth,
1857. on account of embarrassment in its cir
cumstauces, conveying to said Trustees all its
real and personal property wherever situated,
and which had not been previously conveyed,
in trust. that said Trustees should sell and
dispose thereof or SO much rs was Necessary
tor the purposes of the trust, etc, and after
paving expenses, etc. and satistyin liens, it
any, et;, apply proceeds 10 payment of com
pluinaut debls, etc, n copy Oi which deed is
filed with the bill, marked Exhibit No. !, rs Il
part thereof
The Bin further states, that all complain
ants liabilities, payment OF which was secured
by this deed OF trust, have been fully paid aud
satisfied by it, and none OF them by said Trus-
tees, except perhaps nine per cent. upon
SO 500 claimed by the Trustees of the Mineral
-,,T
change, (sincc the hill was filed this has been
compromised and settled hy complainant it.
self which complainant by advice OF counsel
contested legality OF, and filed copy OF docket
entries of this suit with the BILL as Exhibit
No. q and that complainant is ut all times
READY to pay above nine per cent. damages, il
obliged so to do; and that said Trustees, Me-
haiIey, Bloodgood and Sherman have now in
their hands monies OF complainant mole than
sufficient to pay same /; that each OF said Trus-
,ees, Mehalley, Dlo0dgood and Sherman is
largely indebted to it; and that all OF them
ioi ntly, are heavily indebted unto it on several
different nccot nts, and in sundry large sums,
over and above all claims, they or any one ot,ol
any two of them may respectively have agains
it. said complainant.
The Bill further states, that after said deco
was made, the property conveyed by it re
! MANNED in compliments exclusive custody
! possession and control, and that said Trustees
| did 10 act in virtue of said deed; that all the
! property covered by it, which WINS disposed
OF, was sold By the Company ITSELF and pro-
cceds of sales received by it tlkttall debts due
it were collected hy it, and that the whole in,
debtedncss due from it, which WAS paid, was
paid by ITSELF through its own officers and
agents. and it proceeded in its regular bust,
ness, except perhaps the Krebs debt, hereafter
That Eail TruStenc No,
any of them, did any act, in virtue of said
trust, until it had become apparent that such
action was unnecessary but when they found
| they were to be ousted from the power and
control, which, as chief officers and agents u
complainant they had so long enjoyed, they
then sought to avail themselves OF the power;
they supposed, or chained, TO be vested II
them by said deed, in order to obtain and
keep possession and control OF complainant:
business and some OF its property, not for tho
benefit of the ccstui que trust, whose Interests
they had wholly neglected hitherto, ;ni whicl
then required no action on fheir part but n;
| IL means, solely, of protecting themselves iron
the consequences of their previous msman
ascment OF, and fraudulent dealings with, this
Company's property and effects, and for theil
own ends exclusively, regardless of their dnty
TO Others. That with these views they ilad 4
bond as Trustees, 10 the State OF Maryland, (
| copy OF which is exhibited with the bill mark
cd Exhibit No. g." which if in other aspects
coniormable 10 law, should have been long
before flied MS required by the laws of Mary
land; and the sureties upon which they mis-
represented to the clerk OF the circuit Court
TO be adequate sureties for amount of said
bond, when they knew, according TO complain
ants belief and information, that each and all
of said sureties were worthless, pecuniarily
and that they could not give the requisite bond
| The i'll further states, that one Charles W
Krebs, who was formerly IN agent Of com
plalnant, at Baltimore, and who was on May
30th, 1868, and still is, indebted to it in a sum
exceeding SO geo, has hitherto wholly refused
to pay any part of same, or to account with
complainant for the same. That complainant
is casually informed and believes, but does not
know, and has not been advised by either
krebs or said Trustees, that they have received
from said Krebs at least $4,000, fnot more Of
said $4,000, which is now in their hands, and
the only debt that said Trustees ever claimed
to collect for this complainant. if they have
collected any Of it that said krebs and said
Mehatfey, Bloodgood and Sherman, colluded
together when they were satisfied that said
Trustees would lie deprived of their custody
and control. as officers aud agents of complain
ants property and business, and said krebs OF
his agency and without any intention Of or
necessity tor acting bona iide under said deed
of trust, 10 this effect that slil krebs should
give complainant no sa tisiaction, nor account
81 sr;I ~. and hot tba,, ~.