New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-01-29

li.iis q
he Dosd TO sell all Of The s'"amo Of the COMPANY i'' she
purpose Of rayinr their ini~.letn'ss.
ion To- The Company this time ~ prevented GUN
!b f." a. own I s sa3 ssq to &C.
the company Tor the IoeJs received by hi" "nde'
The ndaut had been The aseb the Transit COMPANY
- yious q the 6n Of June 1856 under resouion paseo
third January 8 THIS agency by the ,ssoluOn 'u ,s
mil sed that Tine and these IL no evidence 70 sho" "
liz a5 become large creditor Of The company by sdssuces
And hon s the vts.es Of the company security oI
pat OF UGH advances snd for bonds Issued ~ the company
The s,ion he bore to the Company va: the,
him snd the Company the relation Of Trustee sno
ga. as which rendered II improper for nm 70 maze
such agreemcnt ios lis own
Do moi deem # u,or,ary to discuss the question whether
the defendant berg President ofs company having the means
eoad make lay up add ,ato to
himself coupcusa ion for doing think II mu't be CON
coed thai he cor rot and that such contract would be for
the benefit o.! sLe Company and not Of h- President
But when tr Con bal vittnsy ceased rrs Npen,
at sy rate al pu If business aud for promoting the
been its property all expended snd the CONTRARY
horec,y insovcut have able adcp! the COZ
cusion tht suy ,uch nlc he eIpied especially as
the apo'ed 10 DUTY or re.t'st on the
The w., num6,r Of To which tho counsel OF the
puf where tho SCENT OF trustee has
tken h be eft the property Of tho e'G. gns "u..
OF h done some which tie er'ui ss tu' through ban
could have done his benefit and adv or has used TOO
property Of The essg 'usfoF enrpose' 10 oe,
ninsel which might nave resulted L. ss Dehph :" tue
hi. 10; tho pre.su cs. The property Of tho Company
used the Company could not 10 any way nave run
suy the lsmu' Ins ComPsny IN fact had no exist
for purpose ahd The rule IL regard TO ni'spp
cation OF properly TigAts Of The ea1 CUE H cannot
In sddion this the t.rseineu imposed duty or obi
gsion tie Company. nor was pat under any rests
thereby Company could line tho next day
IL bad power fully as It could the Jay beio"
apply this rule 70 the present ca'" we must eI
tend so Ia tofsJ that tho defendant was Dy
hs relations to The IoD9tny froli running any steamer. 70
Is while ths relation 20 toe Company existed aud
that Company had los, tire ability TO provide
YES els Gnd run them Oh the account OF the company.
understand the relation Of principal and agent or oil
trustee and que HHn involving any such ooisston
law protects he party against the agent o truits ~
tie use OF its property AMI iigat', bot not oeJohu % a
docs the Performance Of hc's which could not ~
sol, damage principal whica could not conflict
with the interests OF the company.
The being fie,deHt OF in'oivent corporation cannot
Lin from doilg what that company had Lost aeoy
20 do ito existence cont!bued bat where ths com
taken awsJ think che reason aud pooy Of ne in. o"ee'
sb no oDty rested upon the efent 70 run ths ne
IN the comisJ alter tue authoiity and sunny Of tho coh
me case OF Abbott az American Hard Rubber Company
3J Barb 573) d the Cumberland Coal Company ss sbof
BAo., s1Sl, esse' involving tie sole Of ihs
property Of the corporations bat even ths ule modified IN
orn preteeos' Ism6 at Lansing - Ksp, 5a6
IL may well be DOUBTED whether the terms Of hi. sgree
snt were al within the 5ouEds Of the agency Tie OBJ
ect OF the the Company to run vessels TO the
slke. snd bach mot 70 naEo money BY ss-ens not 70
objects Of tAe charter An sesDenI on his part not to
ue himself woad have been 10 The beneht 1o' tue IL
Ivy - In. ~. ,,,,m,ul on hi, p.it no, 10
Ion was no '' S -, -" 49, 1,nnsa, Tnsv w.rs NOT
Affected by Il. They had no restraint UPON them by which
oeJ were 49, .saI 80 IN son.,au,nos of mi.
seemsn Tie defendant prevented tho steamers Of the Com
RAW tom Isnune snoher claim mi .nl have perhaps aeo
aSI o t., mi,i, But tier. IL no ground for that
charge ~. .ou,.rx
w INC - jus ~ 49, Iir "a 40 nnshI- 40
ply the claims sso', tn. that they had on June eso
tbr Of the defeDdspt ~ purchase somo inc
t..ec 10 be 10
~ - - -, ~ .sa,,.s .aa On nd Of August had
o's "h ne asslasn, as 'eentsy. sa ~ , 800
1872 S -. ne S,. Mn The cot and
..' - 49, - 500 ,h ,,.pa.nt 20 ali IN Of
10 "o'eHos' io., tbey .'u VIC ,, "a 49,
n.Ya'ssI sfts,,I d,st. '' IVY
brs e.a b, no doub, that an.r the I?h Of June the
'n' - esrr, on n. bs,ia..s ths, IL, DO ,f.
md os.,a ard III. ssf.rfnsni .swsfa made b. vsSderb
nth the T.cihs 3Is.DhIy Company way
$500 i,.sIs.d "a, *, iu,re,s Of th. frslst COMPS
ny. sn5 !" 40 ~ay vlo..eea 'ne s'' ~ '"'N " ~
,s,r,,r. ,b., he 10 no, liable TO account 10 the
d 80. s, 80 49,. ,.c.iy.J b, him non tho PACING
As sisAm.hp 1otnI.s1 on se. ,h ,, =, IT, Ia
VOC i,1s 80 80. "a .eeouuiius Tor tte ,team.hip.
., ~, AM. srr.nd.nt To- .h- .eeounl Of Company.
n.., Nsrs al msrsassd " dsi,nd.nt for sd
,,ae., made by him Con p.ny ard Tor boLds bej by
b s.in th Coup.ny. the validity Of Witch not ssaisd
his IutLoh.y to eel. Therefore. cannot be dnP.ssd
All vessels sold etcepthE the brother !obsihsn were
accounted o T. tie Conn before the appointment OF
the Thoe sppeAf to nave been ,equiss'd
.scSvs,. rendered no.hnr 10 said Of the Brother
Jon.Lsals. In hi, testimony ,sys that no .ecounl
and us svidsucs 10 gwen 90 tho contrary
H., en-. n,oe.,a, Of mi. yes,. Tie defendant 10 bound
fw "' p''N
No., "a nothing In III. evidence which wouid the
, At A.. o1i a, accounts fsr III. ,.o Of the sesDer
rIcep, that relating 10 the ssc to William H. Vsseerb.
I oher yr..cs appear have been family sold Price
moi below their yAas tho condition AMI ubdsr the csun
stance. which they sod ana hs TEocoed OF the sale
.~oai.,o,d 10.
A, 10 the Of a.. steamers PAeihe Cotf ard Uncle
ls as Gu anaoI tho eucum,tasecs aud relation. Of ,hs
paie, DO su,Aited f.e purchaser Was he SOP o'.i an