New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-12-15
TIE ERIE WAR.

yessetuaS' ahscrt and Mr. Stoughton, Judge Fuller
-. and one or two others for the deiepuS"s' o"' w"
sOn, s ~ counsel still remained large -. -. ann
IA Raton rose and said before the argument was
sncea he wished call the attention OF the ot had
ne m and claimed ;he benefits of TINS sui. ana he
order had been made Inanng her party the other side
he believed knew OF the fact. =, = ,.ouded 70 make
.ny point that had not been notified, ana ihqu'"
she were represented mere go oornsel |
d an ne desired TO do was the attention OF me
other side to the fact that other rights 'naD 'o7o
'sa Emot then opened his argument II had he
said consultation among teusev S nt he should
iournment saturday. been ARRANGED u.at &c snpnn
OMEN the argument chiefly because he was 10 arguepo
,les motions could be reargued-whether this the
proper way 70 review tue orders hl"ie hh haep
introduced by Mr. soughton ~ his srgn%sn t, or
ean,9ay We're "RT' nrs Ssre eniltv Of acts which
amounted cIles in the view counsel took OF '
fendthem They had friends in this SUIT the o ~
pertnence which heassailng OF those gentlemen of
this argument TO show that they were uihTetioDs
belief because partieipatOrs in Of the GOOD
from duty charged upon three of the er Side While
diseainng all assault upon his motives o. not neces
sary fcr,nl to defend Judge therahu nor 90 ho ssae
necessary If The acts Of Jadg1 Sg an eppeate Court
II his motives and objects were to be at'acheu 'n We
~ ha Ge"n Charged that this suit brought IN bad
faith IL wac brought by Mr. Belmont for hnlsnn ,tars
with the assent OF others interested to protect III 9Ie
An the same position himself NO charge nau Do
made against Belmont himself He was noS psny
IaSr nor lad he any interest adverse to the COmpai!
shoso stock he held II Mr. Belmont had gOod CASE |
nh a 10 say hat he was encouraged assisted by
persOns with bad motives or bad purposes nor cNn 1S
those PePSsfs Se s pTo SS OF Mr. soaShOn
the though fair in itself would aid the n.eS1 an an
Mr Schen or others, that the case must he AZ IA, h
end The plaintiff must stand or i aaa,oe SY had
some rights in the case His s4OOOCO TO men
accustomed 10 handle millions OF money, or stoeh LIE
might small matter; but to himseif, WIN
country training, seemed an interest worth proec9S
The roef asked was not merely NE hot of the
Receiver. had been said So and that the OUsSe u ny
suit depress the stock by that act me rsSl
s"mTlo, the oyerius OF stock; the and
of funds by trustees for their own benefit anu
1891 NAE hs r 20 show c was Tsturnsble on the 25d Of
November These orders were made compliant OF
August Belmont and Others to when hereafter trty
shareessn that complaint Oyerssue Of stock
Of conspiracy by three men to control 5ne s %n
Of the Company were ia Their hands ana were useu %
stock had really been denied except that ~ was
hveed had been through the eontyance OF h mr., ~, ~
question of how the stock issued was OF any great
jssued7 The Legislature had spoken directly on IT. It
had fixed the capital OF Erie and had provided 9t t
that az certain tune they should report under oatn ts
of the stock This was in the SPECIFIC case OF
Erie And there similar provisions IN the genera
Implication by section Of the act OF SC authorizing
had speaking OF rather apoogzed for than
defended them Two counsel has said they had the right
On the contrary the Conr expressly decided On the
former eases where the question directly before
them that such right existed And it was plain from
tbe stanio that right existed to Issue stock beyond
limit fixed. mfr. EmOtt read the statuteJ IL is plain
the Company had 10 stock into which u could convert
heard something said about opinions OF Judge but
referred TO the point 10 The case Mr.
neut from Judge Sutherland 10 Judge Cdrdozo 49,. 80
zion vas before hnn lie had understood that all the
hOiious 70 before him al once and ne found
nve on his calendar None OF The counsel seemed very
what The 1ye motions aud 1t was finally
conceded thai the motion the argument Tor
srehearng Of the motion aud revsal OF Judge Suthe
hands orders in the Belmont suit.
Judge EiuOtt resuncdBe had read the minutes OF the
argument before Mr. Justice Sutherland and had derived
Instruction and some amusement from them Ihey
had NOT introduced them here, as they would have en-
tailed a very large expense in they appealed. Mr.
stoUghton had expressed wish IN MS argameht that
from laying his hand Erie. Well reverting 10 the
original meaning Of angel messenger there had ap-
peared in defense Of Erie First, when after persistent
hgl trouShout the day, late IN the afternoon Judge
Sutherland oppressed his determination there should DO
fnrlber delays angel appeared TO help them thei
little hter hour second angel brought them some
shdaNts To CONSUME tiiDe; anu lastly ru no douDt
with Information Of theirsueeess IN appointing Receiver
of Then, the 18th, this order 10 show was OBJ
tanned. II was new practice to attack In this manner
~ au might be thus attacked why could not judR
n,entsf order entered could only be reviewed
appeal but orders to be reviewed In tins way,
why moi Judgements Where sas the limit Apparently
they be left 70 the discretion OF the Judge.
reargument might. 1t Is true. be granted IN certain
cases But IL could not be granted where the order had
the Receiver had filed his bond, he had incurred ex-
pcnses he had been made party 70 suits 80 far As the
defendants aud hostile orders the Court would permit
him be had entered the discharge OF his duties. To-
bearing could not be- mad except before the same judge
unless where The Judge conld not be reached.
Mr. Porter asked if he had any authority for his last
proposition.
Judge Emott said not for that butfor this had
been argued that all Judges of this Court but one
Judge such fiction never heard Of when all the
judges we're lnuoh more one IN fact than they now We're
~ came Win peculiar force from th0se VINO mao sIflyen
peTsistony make distinction between Judges that
their Efforts to prevent rehearng OF this case before
Judge called |
that Judge This rule would be found lard down In the old
Chancery books, and 1t had been Incorporated IN the
IL was urged by the other side that there should be
reheariDg because the order made without juris
diStioD IL it were Inade without Jurisdiction then the
counsel right in saying that the Company should
disregard the order, but there wide difference be-
tween want OF jurisdiction and erroneous decision on tie
feet Of the action The Court unquestonably had jur5
action Of the pares It had Jurisdiction Of the subject
conduct OF trustees aud OF this the Court
had Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction dd not arise from
and rested their general equity Jurisdiction Every
stakeholder had the Right to clam the protection OF the
Court against the misconduct of ms trustees when
destroying his property There was no provision in our
present system Of practice 20 rehear anything that had
been decided by Judge sitting B Court of Eqnty
There had been such PROVISION IN the JUDICIARY acI Ddt
that provision amounted substantially 20 an appeal
the Court In baBe and had been superseded by our
appeals. There could DO no rehearlDR where
appeal had been taken. The order of Judge Suther-
land bad been appealed from by the defendant In ap-
uaiing they had as eectuaiy reno the control
Of the Special Term though they had removed II to
the Court or Appeals Though IL called one supreme
Court II had Two branchesone the appellate, the other
Of original jurisdiction. They were entirely distinct
Judge CardOzO said he could not consider IT, The
supreIne Court one, aud If Mr. EmOtts doctrine
established, 1t would DO TO the grave injury Of many
Mr. Field said that even on appeal the Court Of APP
peals not entirely removed from the Supreme
1our An execution issued hfterx ard from the Supreme
void fact 10 might effect the dismissal