The New York herald., 1868-03-20

desired to inform the court that Judge Cerke was
Judge having nothing more than coequal powers
Mr.. Rapallo then read
THE NEW INJUNCTION.
SUPREME COURT.-The Erie Ratl,pau Cpnpdnu
ana James s. Whitney, Psatntt1s us. Cornelius
yandsroat Wtutam q. Vandsroat, Rtonard
| @. barnard, Frank W0rk, Josiah Bardtoeu, j. o.
Bancror Davts, Alexander S. Diuen, Dantel DrelO.
S Ss Gsa zSSs &C.,, wgsa z.an' Eosn 9ras. ,os:
| Frederick A. Lane Homer RanasdelL william B.
Ssldmore s Hsnsy 1nompson. James Etss r. xar. G,.
ana John b. SiavoaoE, 7ns Boston, Hartford
oSa @S Aa ana dSS PsSS S9sany sSaa s1a cSpaa s %
ants-On the complaint herein and the aaidavits
e oreTsa a nd the fs %
sche yOnn and yosn
aud servants be and they are hereby enjo!ned and
restrained from taking, causing or procuring to be
the name OF the people otherwise any proceedings
in the actions or proceedings instituted by them or
either OF them, or on their behalf behalf OF the
people In the said complaint mentioned or on any or
der or proceeding heretofore had or made therein and
until
servants are further enjoined and restrained from
entering or procuring to be entered any order for the
appointment OF receiver Of any OF the property Of
the Erie Railway Company or OF any shares or Ger.
BY the said company, or Of the proceeds OF such
or any shares, certificates or property. And
as or o n
thereof, and from doing any act as such receiver,
and from interfering with the said property shares
certncates OF shares or any OF the property OF the
said Erie Railway Company, and the clerks OF the
Supreme Court are enjoined and restrained from
entering any order for the appointment OF such re-
And It is further ordered that the defendants and
s Hr
William II. Vanderbilt Richard Schell, Augustus
Schell, James II. Banker and George @. Barnard
servants are .enjoined and restrained from
| advising, melting, commencing or assisting
ceena having for its OBJECT wRRoe OF part the
removal or suspension OF the directors officers OF
q o. o any Of se 81 %
Of the said company or the disposal In any way
| Of such property, or the restraining the said
company from carrying out any Of the agreements
or contracts mentioned in the said Complaint,
or advising any act toward the commencement
for Its object the procuring obtaining OF the re-
lief or judgment sought to be allowed by any Of the
actions or proceedings In the complaint mentioned;
and that any other person who may hereafter bring
any action or proceedings OF like nature, or in
BY said actions or proceedings, desist and refrain
from further prosecuting the same after notice OF
this order that nothing herein contained shall pre-
vent the Erie Railway Company from moving to dis
solve or modify any Injunction now in force against
said company its board of directors executive
committee or any OF its officers restraining them
from any action in their official capacity, to pre-
vent either IN & S them ne answering any pleading now
Justice S Of the suureme Court Of he STATE Of New
York.
NEW YORK, IS March, 1858.
were not prepared at this time TO crtcse this order
or the motives which had prompted the parties in
obtaining It, but they had the right and ability to
crticise the jurisdiction. AS they found the in
its newer aspect the Erie Railway Company and Its
State ana now ottempted to se it's stocKhoders 'se
prevent them from bringing suit for the
protection OF their rights and interests. Mr..
Schell. representing the interests OF u large
majority OF the stockholders, enjoned
from prosecuting his suit and this action the part
OF the Judge who signed the order was clearly ultra
pires. The right OF citizen to bring his suit was as
clear and well defined as the right Of the court to de-
eide 1t. This proceeding, then, was wholly unauthOr
lied and unprecedented. There were precedents it
was true to prevent parties from asserting legal
inequitibe remedies, but there were none cnjoinng
them from seeking equitable relief. In this case,
however, the action had been carried still further
for while 1t denies Mr.. Schell his equitable remedy it
left the defendants TO do as they chose. He would
now submit the order which they proposed.
Judge Barnard directed an order to be drawn and
served upon MI. Eaton returnable forthwith, requir
ing the Erie Railway Company to show cause why
this injunction should not be vacated.
was better way of proceeding. as there might he
some objection To the order to snow cause the
being laid In steuben county, the court withdrew Its
direction Mr.. Fullerton thought the better way
would be to disregard the Injunction just served.
Mr.. Field desired to know what papers had been
used In the matter; he would like to see some OF the
aiidavits OF service.
Mr. Rapalio then read adavits Of service of large
number Of papers In the case
Mr. Clark said there were two motions before the
court-one In relation to the appointment OF the |
receiver, and in reference to the order to
show cause why the stay OF proceedings granted |
BY Judge Clerke few days since should not be set
Mr. Field said he apprehended that the first motion
before the court was upon the order to show
II was that notion he supposed which the gentle
Mr.. Clark thought he had stated himself in ~ man.
ner that could be understood. He had called that
Mr.. Fied-Do you make that motion,
Mr.. Clark have stated what did in the matter
Mr.. Fied-Do you make that motion nowa
No response.
Mr.. Field-I have to say that these papers came
into our hands about twenty minutes past O'Clock
this morning; they have been sent from Elmra and
were suppose, detained on the way by the frcshets
here TO state the court that this Injunction
had been granted by Judge Cerke, and not for the
purpose Of going further than to state that fact
have an aiidavit OF service OF the Injunction which
will here read. Reads the aiiidavitj Now, sir this
Injunction has been brought notice OF the court
and that being our objection TO any action being
taken, then only desire to say single word more,
with the view oil dsabusng any one who has listened
to my friend, who has abored heavily In his argu-
ment and has suffered considerably In consequence
OF the labor Of delivering II.
This suit on behalf OF the Erie Railway Company
and Mr.. Whitney, which have now brought to your
notice is In the ordinary exercise OF jurisdiction of
court Of equity; suit To restrain q multiplicity OF
suits and ~ raise all the questions which have been
raised and are likely To be raised In the litigation 1t
brated New Haven omnibus case. There
are many claims OF different persons, and o
number OF questions are raised in relation to them.
The main Is whether the issue OF the fty-eight
thousand shares OF stock legal or illegal. Some
OF the counsel think was legal, while other per-
think II not. But II Is issue that be
heard in one litigation, where all the parties inte-
rested can be heard also. SO also with the questions
which have arisen in II with regard to the Buffalo,
Bradford and Pittsburg Railroad Company and the
Boston, Hartford and Erie Railway Company, who
made parties In the suit II was, as believed
q proper and correct proceeding, and was en-
tirely legal. In II an Injunction has been granted
an Injunction that Is not In any respect extraord
nary unless the gentleman thinks the fact that a
Judge OF the supreme Court Is made q party de-
fendant may be extraordinary. But surely he
Will not claim that a judge OF the Supreme Court
may not be sued, for that Is thing that Is being
done every day. In this case, therefore, we have
the fact that this Injunction has been granted. To
stay other suits Is not at all an unusual proceed
ing. The gentleman says you cannot restrain o
man from suing in equity In his own behalf.