The New York herald., 1868-02-22
SUPREME coUaT-cAAmBERs.
The Drev.Erie Trouble-Drew's GounseI
Raise Technieni Objections of JurisdiciioD-
The Case Farther Adjourned.
Before Judge Barnard

The Drew.Eris Troubie-Drew's Goansel
Raise Technical Objections Of JurisdicIioD-
The Case Farther Adjourned.
Before Judge Barnard
h Re ne Petition, DC. for ts Removal Of Daniel Dre,s
Ae-This case came before cour yesterday on the
sapton for the removal Of Daniel Drew from his ocal
pssiion director and Treasurer OF the Erie Railway
Oon pany, the appl location being made upon the petition
Ased few days since by the Attorney General through
hessa Rapaiio spencer a. counsel for the State,
behalf Of the people. MeswA Charles A. Rspailo, A. j.
vAnderpoe and ex.Judge William Fullerton sppeared
On behalf OF the STATE and David Dudisy Field, John
Z. Porter Augustus NJ Smith for the resp ondsnt
On behalf Of the respondent Mr.. Smith stated that he
vksed before the motion procssded with, TO raise
80 OF three questions Of Jurisdiction. He then
pro,e Del 10 read section 3s, Revised Statues,
Asknina the jurisdiction Of the Chancellor ocers
o. eol porstons 70 order payment over Of Moneys,
W suspend thsm " remove thsm, 10 direct new elss
eons, Ac add itsi mlzion IN section %, 40 foievs:
bs jurisdiction conferred by the preceding thirty
secton shal be exercised ID ordinary csses bill
Ds,non, IS the case may require, or the chsnceilor
may direct at the instance Of the Attorney Gsnsral,
sAs Instance .ry creditor of such oorporston or .,
che instance OF any director, trustee other oacer of
q 10 afrairs" Mr. smith nsS, read he prayer of
she petition, sud ssid The petition signed BY the Al
ssSS tiS ss wss q.
Of the facts In said psten, and upon cred ole isota
uop believed the other facts 70 bs ,rua
His 6rst proposition that thls proceeding IA
tally defective 10 not making tho Efis Ra~sy compA-
~ party. Tho court weu,d make decree In this
matter for the Ers Railway Company had vital
sva in tbs whether Drsw, Of direos-
orr and tts Treasurer, shoad - removed and whshsr
sbsrs shall be election Of smother oncsr 10 the
papy. The court could not move In this matter
without cashing With The intsrsss or the COMPANY.
Again, the proceediag net authorized In tnis
shape There authority upou The sA,sts
book 70 commences . psocseding uadsr this petition.
fCode OF Proos6ure section t71, Procssdlng could be
osiy taken Against the respondent BY regular sur oy
wblch he would have twenty days 70 answer and In
and the Issue dsyerfneed In regular snd orderly way.
Upon either Of these quest theve was no doubt W
ths reepondsnrs nght 20 have the Erie Railway CON-
pany Ia court before he could be called upon zt ALI
peciAy this proceeding voald Affect the busnsss aud
psocls or the comtany. In the place the pro-
s~ed na must be by regular suit ~ - the e1prsss
provision of the Cod. There doubt thst the
Attorney General had IN his LANDS oerlsin powers
Ia re- allon 70 salts against offcets Of corpo-
rsnous but they were limited BY the Revised
Etslu,es 10 cases OF proceedings OF pdb'c oharac-
kcs say that this suit OF that nature or pnr
pose There was moth OF this case that made IL ne.
esssary - begu II By petition whs thsrs wss great
tes 10 induce the court 10 say tha should not bc com
msnced ny pc iuon but by bill The jur>deaon con
fsrred by the thrty-nifd section " shall be by PHI or
Ison o. the Instance Of the Attorney Genera prose.
cstpg behslf Of The people, &c. lie has no righi
W 10 sffero With . case where thee 10 controversy
between the directors Of the Ene Railway Or It's eredl-
tofs styckhVder for W all of them tnere u re-
nedy pr vdel BY su 10 be brought by them. not b.
Ve Attorney gene AL Agan, the power of euspeusoo was
sD' " bs sytfcsed sn0eT tb" PROVISIONS o. ibs stsas