New-York tribune., 1867-08-13
SUPREME CoURT-srECIAL TERM-Bcfore Justice
TIE ADIRONDACK ESTATES SUIT.
4 L d. In III. ..lhnr.

This was an action to set aside certain iu-
dcal sales Of lands originally conveyed by the defend
ants Rosekrans and Others to the Adirondack Railroad
Company aud afterward purchased In by them under
decree OF court in the nature OF foreclosure on the
failure Of the old company TO perform their part OF the
agreement TO SELL and resOld by them to company
Of almost the name. The nature OF the suit was
fully reported at the time of the trial in last june, the
most important matter being charge against Judge
The ease came up on demurrer and the only question
before the Coar whether even II the iacs stated IN
action. The Court has decided that there was not
The opinion of the learned judge IN ths eaSe o NeTy @
lengthy, covering some twenty pages ana we nave ohy
space to publish extracts of Its principal points "hch
The law provides but two modes Of correcting errors
legal prOceedngs-One by motion when the error Is one
OF form arising out OF failure TO conform % tne ssga
rules Of practice OF the Court Tue oeT D al.a NIeto
the error consists I'm the omission OF te court ltse 10
properly observe and apply the law Affecting thc rights
involved I'm controversy making It's adjudication upon
them. But in this case, as IhG judgments OF oiutls
do not exhibit any legal In the respect In which
they made the subjects OF obecon for they DO not
direct recovery OF the amounts 10 become due upon he
contracts absolutely nj the time OF their rendition but
they the amounts prospecyey To become que
for principal and interest at the several times Wheh e
same were agreed 60 be paid by the company ana tcn
direct that in the same shall at those periods remain
ments for their recovery and executions for their collection
There only nothing improper In tins disposition
OF the case but the other hand the correct practice
relating them pursued 1t was the naniist duy
OF the Court stng ~ az huS Ia nen ~ drcc@a \" De- en-
tered that could not be successfully accomplished IN
any other way As execution to be issued for the
collection Of the instalments subsequently accrung
under the terms OF the contracts until thcy hhd re-
nrctvcy neturcd there il no way In which injustice
cnd he done 10 the Company by means Of the directions
for their recovery in case oi Their nonpdy ncp ana no
nppTehenson OF either Injustice or Inconvenience appears
nj any time 10 have by the defendant In
those actions account OF thcse directions Ana Mhe
that continued To be- the case. 80 II difficult 20 discover
nnv authority that will permit the plaintiff a stock
holder in the Company To- take and maintain proceed
respect in such directions Certainly such proceeding
can be successfully maintained by an independent action
When sheldon was appointed Receiver, and qualified
himself SUCH aud entered upon aud continued In The
discharge of his duties by the express terms oi tne statute.
he became trustee, not only for The creditor under
whose application lac appointed but for al the other
lie took Sd r. S. 9TH I'd; 7c3, a. 75o. S..
"The Receiver appointed under The application OF Al
bert " Cheney, applied to tS Court Tor directions 10 be
given him In making sale Of the property Of the corpora
tion. which he bad received ana Dccohe invested Win
such, ana an oTder was ihadc giving MN thc ulIco-
tons applied for. These directions are assaed by the
complainant on various grounds as unwarrantod and
unauthorized.
II is also alleged in tho complaint that the defendant
EnOch H. ROsokrans y means OF his Official position. Was
the court In which they taken. But 10 Is not
shown by any statement contained IN the complaint that
his Official position resulted IN producing any different
order directions than the setlcd practice authorized
any other person interested ia tho proceedings 20 be
taken. IL Is alleged In the complaint that the de
as his counsel at the time Of and during the
progress Of the sale But even he did that would form
for his settling It aside In the absence Of any
specific act Of misconduct hs part for be had right
TO attend ana advise te receiver on account o tIe inter
deny him that right might very seriously have prcudiced
the Interest he had In the collection O hs debt for which
thOee proceedings were directed O be- taken.
ct j. alleged In the cations last considered
In any Of those which procede it, that either Of these
orders procured for any improper unlawful pur
pose. that either Of them used for such purpose
The order directing the receiver how o advertise and sell
the property, and his proceedings under IT, relied upon
showing that such must have been the character Of
these orders. But that order contains provision
direction Of unlawful improper nature. but CON
formed 20 the provisions OF the statutes relating 20 aud
governing the proceedings IL can sustain such cOnclu
sion that which the plaintiffs counsel Insist should be
drawn from II.
Under that can be taken OF these allegations
whether considered separately combined together
for they encctual when combined than they
each OtheTdO they support the conclusion that either
the order nsructng the receiver or that confirming his
proceedings cOllusye fraudulent IN the equitable
sense Of that term.
The defendants must therefore, have Judgment upon
the demurrors with leave 10 the plaintiff to amend III 20
days on payment Of costs"
j.. W. Dodge and James T. Brady for plaintiffs John o.
Mott, counsel for defendant.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAs-sPEcIAL TgRM.-Before
Judge CAHDOZO.
DECISIONS.
Miller agt. KnOx.-lnjunctiOn dissolved; $40
costs TO abide event
PremO agt. Smth-See memorandum.
Barnard agt. Barhard.-RepOrt confirmed and iudg
ment granted.
Richmond agt. UIzer.-Motion denied
Crazy agt. btewart.-Ordcr vacated without costs.
Marsh agt. GObandan.-MOtiOn denied and Injunction
vacated Same agt same-MOtlon for receiver granted