New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-01-29
TEE TRANSIT COMPANY AND nR.
VsNDEKRsT,T.

Monday, Mr.. Justice Ingraham delivered ar
elaborate opinion in the case Of Murray, Re
ceiver of the Accessory Transit Company. agt
Cornelius Vanderbilt. The case involve, tht
history Of tho relations between Mr.. Wander
bilt aud the Transit Company, is important t.
the parties from the large amount depending
on ia decision, aud ia interesting 10 the public
for various reasons. We print elsewhere III
full Judge Ingraham's opinion. The material
facts on which it ia based are os follows:
Prior to January 1856 the Transit Company
was engaged in q profitable business, transport
ing passengers and freight across the
I.thinus of Nicaragua, aud elsewhere, ard
owning many steamers and other valuable
property. On the Sd Of January. 1856
Mr. Vanderbilt was appointed General Agent OF
the company, and on January 30, 1856, was
elected its President On the lStl Of Febrna-
rs, 1856, under q decree OF Ryas claiming
to be President of Nicaragua, the property Of
the company on the Isthnus was seized, aad
its operations were from tina. time suspended.
In March, 1856, further powers were conferred
on A[r. Vanderbilt a. agent and President OF
the Company. to enable him to do all neccssa-
ry acts to relieve the company from its ditii-
entities. Uoder this authority the plaintiff 81
leqe, that tho defendant made o contract with
tue Pacific Mail Steamship Company, BY which
the latter were to pay $40 600 q month to the
Transit Company, 80 long as no line should be
run between New.York and San Francisco in
opposition to the Pacific Company; that this
agreement continued 10 fosce down 60 the
commencement of this action, ani that I'LL
der il Mr.. Vanderbilt had received over
81 200. 600. for which, excepting $4,000, he
had refused to account TO tie company. Other
Isrge sums were claimed on account Of coal
and other property, and for freight and pas
saqe MONEYS, aud it was further charged IN the
complaint that defendant had iraudu'enty en-
deayoreJ to acquire the property oil tue COM
pany TO his own use, by retaining the ABOVE
subsidy, By the execution OF mortgages on the
shins and sales below their value, by selling
mart of them also to his s0n at q low price for
lis o.n use, and by improper charge. IN his
accounts. The plaintiff therefore prays Tor on
account aud for decree requiring the deiehd-
ant to pay over the amounts iOvhd due. MT.
Vanderbilt. for answer, denies the plaintiff
RIGHT 10 maintain tlo action as receiver, denies
the charges OF the complaint, denies especially
oil charges Of fraud, alleges That the subsidy
belonged to him aud not the company, and
claims that he has fully accounted TO the CON-
pany in IN matters between them.
The Court, in rendering its opinion, disPo'es,
FIRST. Of the tochacal objections OF the de-
fendant. The plaintiff is receiver BY virtue
OF several appointments in suits against tue
Company, and rightfuly maintains tds action
for the benefit OF the creditors of the Transit
Company.
As to the terms OF the contract between
Mr.. Vanderbilt and the Pacific Company, there is
no serious dispute. The only question is,
whether Dir. Vanderbilt made the bargain for
his own benefit or that Of the Transit Com
many. The evidence shows that down TO the
IIth of Jane, 1856, Vanderbilt was acting as
the agent of the Company aud the Court ac-
cordney directs that the money received up
10 that date-a period Of about three months
shall he accounted for to the Company.
The defendant objects that TIE contract
between himself and the Pacific Company was
IMMORAL. and such az the law vii! not enforce
but the rue of law is clear, that although
the contract may have been such rs could not
have been legally sustained, yet wLero under
ii money has been received by an agent or
his principnl, the former has 10 right to refuse
payment TO th3 latter.
About tie 18th Of June, 1856, the Pacific
Company refused to continue the stipulated
payments on the ground that Morgan Il Gar
rison had begun 10 run an opposition line, 81!
the rights Of the Transit Compaly CA sbe
IsthmaS having passed into their hands, aud
The company being thus utterly unable to pro-
ceed with its business. Vanderbilt replied to
the Pacific Company Lh1t they could stop pay
ment if they pleased; that 10 could take caro-
OF himself and would run line on his own
account. Yhc Pacific Company, therefore,
thought better Of it, further negotiation followed,
aud It was agreed that the payments should be
continued on condition that Vanderbilt would
break down tho Morgan d Garrison line. All
payments under this second agreement, and of
course under those in 1857 and lSyS arc con-
sidered by the court as maniiesty made to the
defendant acting IN his own behalf, the Transit
Company being in no condition to pursue lis
business or carry on any rivalry with another
company, and accordingly Mr.. Vanderbilt is not
bound To account to the Transit Company Tor
any moneys received on this account spOse-
qqeutly "a june H., 1856. The decision st the