The New York herald., 1868-04-10
The Cotton Trade.
THE COURTS.
SUPREME C0UaT-GeNeRAl TENN.
The Erie LitigatiOn-C0nclus of the Argu.
ment the Appeals.

Tnc ERIE Observation-Disclosures Oh the Argue
ment on the Appeals.
Before Judes Barnard Ingraham and CardoZo.
Yesterday morning Mr.. David Dudley Field ap-
peared at the Supreme Court, General Term, before
Judges Barnard Ingraham and Cardozo, to close the
argument on the appeals from orders made at Special
Term in the great Erie Railway litigation. Tie main
portion Of this argument was, OF course, devoted to
taken from the order Of Mr.. Justice Barnard appoint
ing George A. Osg0Od receiver OF the proceeds OF
900 worth OF Erie stock. alleged to have been
Issued In violation of an Injunction.
Mr. Field argued that If the proceedings on which
the appointment of Mr. Osg0od was made were reg
,ular his opponents should have directed some por-
tOn of their argument to maintaining this point on
the preceding day.
Mr.. Charles A. Rapallo objected to Mr.. Field rails
ing this question now, as under the ruling OF the
court on Tuesday they were restricted as to the time
be devoted to the argument and was not fair to
call upon them now to go further on that question.
Mr.. Field resumed and argued that the appoint
ment OF the receiver was made without proper
grounds, and 1t was an unusual exercise OF the
power of the court, even If Mr.. Skidmore, on
whom the papers were served In court could be con-
sdered as representing the Erie Railway Company,
Mr.. Skidmore had never been charged with having
possession OF the money, and the afidavits showed
that the company never had It, and the order was
made without notice to any person in whose pos
who had the money were then before the court no
case for the appointment OF receiver had been
made out. Plaintiff acknowledged that the stock
charged to have been issued in excess was issued in
conversion OF bonds which had been issued for
the purposes OF the company, and such issue
law. '' But it v was said to have been issued in
violation Of an injunction. Now, was 1t the
Injunction In the suit OF the people, or
was 1t some other injunctionr IL would be new
doctrine to assert that violation OF an Injunction
In one suit may be avenged by the plaintiff In an
other suit when the parties to that SUIT do not com
plain. There was no evidence TO show that the
stock was issued In violation OF the injunction In
the Scel suit. The statute provided that there must
be a regular contempt proceeding TO punish for the
violation OF an Injunction, and 1t could not be
grounds for the appointment OF a receiver In any
case. But without any reference to the merits OF the
proceeding the injunction granted by Judge Clerke
and which was brought 10 the notice OF the court
and counsel on the day the order was made was an
insuperable obstacle; that Injunction was treated
with contemptuous disregard, and had 1t not been
for the discretion OF counsel the court would have
vacated the order at once, instead OF dsregarding IT,
But TO 90 back to the 14th OF March, and consider
what occurred on the proceedings In the matter OF
the attachment OF Mr.. Diven. Counsel were not then
thinking OF anything further as, the attachment hav
ing been served, the proceeding was out OF court.
one OF the counsel then rose in his place and said
"I now ask for an order to show cause why Q sup
Elemental complaint should not be filed and re-
Mr.. Rapallo suggested that 1t be mad returnable
on Monday morning, but the court said, "Let 1t be
made returnabe forthwith" and thereupon took the
word forthwith" and handed them back. Coun-
sci then handed the papers to- Mr.: Skid.
wS Was gang his a Ta
the room three times Judge barnard said, ''Draw
mp an order appointing George A. 0sgood receiver,
with security IN ten millions OF dollarsS
Mr.. Field concluded by saying that 1t was for the
court TO say whether such thing should be estab-
lshed as the rule OF the court But the law OF the
land had something TO soy that subject; the prac
tice OF the courts had something to do with IT. the
due order OF judicial proceedings was involved In
the question: and the respect which the law.loving
and law abiding people Of this State should feel for
the ministers Of justice would depend In no small
degree upon their decision.
fhe court then took the papers, reservins Its de-