New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-11-24
THE NEW ERIE WAR.

pECroRs--A NEW RECEIVER Az
A LATE HOUR LAST hi"hl' M r. poI-
Tbe cases of Mcintosh agt' 1ne Li,e - -
= ond others and that OF Belmont as@ ZIG
way ~ 40 and others the first IN the H'eres' VI
'.+,, could the second sganst that interest were
80, on tho calendar yesterday bu' "oio 49, .,,
orders 70 chow cause. 10 viii be -
,niunettop IA the Mcintosh sh' l's''' a.,
,Des IN ali other suits, aud thst there was a"
-. -, o,,,oirt,e Mr Gould Receiver ana suoS'-
"' - permitting him.to buy in excessive STOCK 70
S"'1' - ~ $4,000 The motion IN this smt when
- oret argued was 10 set aside al these o'ue'f
,r,ay n counsel was, on the "ne sde Mo7'rt i'F,'0
- p,.r,epont and Mr Eaton, and on the oNer nj
x,a,dcr,,oel Mt Rurrn. Mr Porter Mt Brown III -"
- and MI Seward. Mr.. Burrill, when the cases
.ere called up asked adourument TIE cases h'o no'
- ,,ced eu the Calendar n they bad been and lakeh
Str re,far course they would not have been ieaehoI
Tor some DAYS. and n the absence oi any mor1 dcC
tht fo exlect that IL would not be called up AZ On,
They had beeu on e@RrH l m i1r 10 nretar, in his
which the order 10 show cause hdd Only Do'n '''''O "
e1IuI9ag a. ,J no preparaton needed; the order
a., nov, e,u-e was made on the peadlng~' anu 10 @
.0idayts could DE admitted Iheie Was "O''i"e w
UG MI T and Mr Vauderpoe contended that the an
- tro,iurrd new natter aud therefore ouuiu n' az
wercd 6y sfdavits aud they should have uhe 10 PN'
in th9se sn 9aSa refused TO adjourn the argument
Mr. Raualo opened the argument iot vi, ~ 80
brieny rcced the allegations OF INC Mcli,oaI Ia a.
mininsh a SHARED olcor OF the Company VINO sau nc
believed he had 200 shares OF me C0nrt"A WIZ" oiitv
statement that there was DOUBT as 70 =, Iot every
~ ccrinin acts Of certain onccrs asked tat tN',g
stocshodc ge ne would not in,pucn The motive.
sfa Judge though he deeply regretted ana 'ue CO. SS
sDeraie Mr. Belmont from the charges brought IN ,io
Nrlutosh complaint, read MI beiihoh.s H , toci
tng bis beng Interested ~ specuauOns IN tHe elSSH,
Tge Injunction obtained was by one ftOcEho4uei VI IY
sLaros agaust al the stocKnolIcls ~ CV, ,r Rnt
rainst subsequcnt suits that an injunction hL"M1 oc
granted on such allegations, Was an unhv'tu VI Sms r
afr
S lear tau i'm this case Stockholders charged Ger
~ drc"tor- with tie gravest Dalieasance, and one
mainly i'm the interest OF those directors
stouped them. The Judge must nave hhoNii 'i'' MI,
crd,T for receiver made cut Of court was q hu nc
SIN clter Of the Code the one Authorizing lhe az
noiutme OF receivers, and from the ute OF tlat cI9p
appeared that such appointments We're 10 Do u1 i ~
,bc court one single exception appeared III huuet
oucnt section, whore IN supplementary Plo'eeu''sT Uty
Judge WAS authorized 20 appoint (" ItttN Ci "a
o1t MI cUrt lad no such power and MI Edpalo citeu
various decisions to sustain ms point , 90 avoid re-
With regard 10 the third order, ne desired 70 aN"l
oeciion on ang person, and had therefore confined mn
1elf exclusively 10 law questions except WherS to
made other discussion nScesssiA - - hat fe zen
The order hung the order ltae ana II tl@S lra Az
With H. Bu besides 10 was in violation OF severn az
t,nrt statucs HE Legislature had directed that lhe
moneys which the proceeds OF so.A suuilu -,
lration felony. The general railroad lct hdl
The purchase or sale oI lts own soeA 70 ay 6.sts
The these directors showed NOT ohy ndh'
imurudeucc. aud reckcssness but dirtct NolaIo Vi
Law II was no case here OF short nouce 1n %ST ~
ing for The immediate action the supreme court utVuE
us representative Oh the bench TO sweep away !"
Mr Burri argued In repy that they had been forced
into THE proceeding tins short notice tue
n them IRON placing the true facts ~ tine case before I1
Court This effort tho part Of Belmont trlnsierre,
those represented by INN TO the position when they MAJ
attempted 90 east ou them. Of desiring :" use 'he 'ou
10 scrSC their ends
Railway Comp3nyi Mr; Bnrr Slan.ngi ina' ~ W. 49,
Teploscnted MI Raldlo sgid mat N'n 4i W. w.
r. had Appeared ~ tie sUit by Belmont nc Lao sc'
hui 40 tins matter.
Mr. BurrI resumed: There evident desire
prevent from bringing the true state OF facts peio
tasb's s1f. MAT WAS tle vital question This was me-
uuuf fer e.
merely denied the statements OF the complaint the arg
lnent on such motion this confined TO the plea,
lngs: hut where the mp matter iutonde
e. unGonco Inc Judge they had rghl TO rlswcr u .
dyf risr tker Ms no collision between Mcintosh
thc other defendants and that the snit not for the
benefit but was 10 perfect good fatlL n they wer
aened that night, It would DC "A monstrous wrong aud
Injustice 20 him To decide Oh the ground OF tia
rOlusiOI against him,
Mr. Pierepont for the plaintiff said that they didn'
Mr. BuIln asked Why then, was II put IN their plead
ingsi They ddrcly on IT, had been made part Of h'
ScIStosi Sis VAS bro9sht ~ perfect good faith tSea
would admit that n was brought with an honest lnteu
procure honest Adjudication before honest Judge
there would be- nut short argument Collision was nc
gs ~ tho controversy. TDey charged COLLISION on the
charged IL on them II they admitted away this hadn't
Iho plaintiff as much right IN Court ~ bey hadi no
s,,,,,rs H. s'vs claim mar thc Con,uaTy has at,
uniu-tcd rlht tO ssUc stock without uC others that
they mad such pover.4-.stshs Che Court 80 decide
which right Has no not The right 10 ask so vital "a
question: ana &, III That good cause Of actioug
Judte sutherland ought the discussion Of such an ab
stract power raised hy stlclloldef rcituy t0 iu
tcIfcrc with The night OF every other stakeholder from
FALLING the Directors 10 account Ion alleged misconduct
Mr. Buuili-As an abstract question: Nu.
judge sutneraHd-lhcn Dr. not mat an cuo ~ the lu
Mr BuriiU argued that NOT simply question az
IheUy. There were allegations here fudt certain PARTIES
~ .,- 49,, ~ 80 'i -, ~, ~ ..i ~ =, W. -,
There another branch 81 this compliant The
jitmuG alleges that the business OF TIC Company IN
wolves l4r-e 'NI'd'"'e'' 4ua moor! Oh tn- comiIh
- that uCre arr certain PERSONS peculiarly interested lu
dcprecatlu- tho value oi the sioch aud producing as
Bsuch depreciation as possible. III the defendants were,
chard, seeking FEB depreriltc the stock 10y causing
prryr,,tei fri meeting ~ obi-ations ana INN, be en-
pointing Slr Could Receiver. Il perfectly proper; 10
authori4ed him /" carry the Company and 10 pay IL
debts. Who was prciudIcrd ny .uch orders 70 only
provides for fair aHd Do et al Idicauou, and ion tho
MIR Gould tncu pr...is his petition to The supreme
Court the statements made the Belmont siuj, that
Al over issue "i STOCK las been made Unauthorized by
law.
Judge s1treraud-r wasn't stock; you may call 1t
stock, bat YOU Ig.rt az well c4 10 poetry.
Mr BurriI proceeded to argue that whether stock
NOT the Company we're liable for DO either stock r
damage ana 'h'' ~ was - n a' F'r ti'N TOT th'
Company 10 have snch stock Cancelled az low figure.
raucelng cliins aciiust the Company IL low figure
Mas there ANYTHING wrong m taking advantage Of thu
depreciation ~ tno sOcA produced d. tie Vaccinations
that they prevented from specializing the effect
MIR Pierrepout answered and after some considerable
discussion the Argument w"s closed at Lite hc.ort
Mr. EapalIo then proposed 20 bring thc argument 10
the Belmont sIi. which FOR tine appointment OF
Receiver thIt MI. BuIril asked that 10
They had bceu engaged tire whole afternoon and evening
of Friday thc whole Of saturday Mp To 10 a. u. whom
they hid ceased respect u the Slhbai and rll
Monday morning tl summoned 90 Count Oh ul,,o algu-
Hcuts, ~ preparing atdINi,- and thc4 WCio ult set
prepared. They asked bat fos Short delay. Nj Porter
tue thing.
Mr Rapdi0 ard Mr. Porrcp0ut opposed tho q foud
ants m tins had had so days tu pcpar" their par
Mr. Burrii and Mr. pOftcr--No. Tor you had the rllt
u serve afdayits down 10 saturday night
Ar. Rapa0 claimed that they knew what was O. De
answered and these sidaNits might have been ready.
Jud.t sutherland siid that hat Mcintosh saf