New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-12-02
THE ERIE WAR.
ARGUMENTS ON THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE
JUDGE BLATCHFORD'S APPOINTMENT OF
JAY GOULD AS RECEIVER.

day morning before Judge Nelson in the United States
Circuit Court An order had been previously granted by
Judge Blachford appointing Jay Gould receiver OF
certain sum OF money, and eDjoning all persons from
interfering with his duties. motion to yacato that
order made before Judge Nelson, who granted an
order TO show why 1t should not be vacated which
is the matter Of the following arguments Judges
Davis PierrepOn and Noah Davis and Messrs Charles
oConor and Rapao OF counsel for the motions Judge
Porter and Messrs. Seward d. D. Field and stoughton
againstt
ARGUMENT OP JUDGE NOAH DAVIS.
Judge Davis said he appeared in behalf of Mr.. Henry
f. Davies the appointed by the Supreme Court
OF the State OF New York who had peoned this Court
to get aside the appointment OF Mr. Jay Gould here made
and to recognize him the legally appointed receiver
nc would Assume FIRST that the state Court IN ePPCln pe
gard for the rights and interests OF the parties concerned
ton 70 him on the ground Of nndness or any
other, had been made until the affidavit on that subject
ton OF the proprety OF appointing Receiver the case
The other side est0pped from raising that question
by their papers aud their previous action in seeking
and obtaining the appointment OF Receiver. Mr. Jay
| Gould. Mr.. Davis went on TO discuss the compare
pointed by the state Court to the United States Court
respectively arguing that Judge Davies at and
| JAY Gould was not He denied the allegation, made
on the other side, that the appointment Of Judge
FORE prearranged and states tho fact to be that the
printed order submitted TO he Court had been rejected
aud that the order under which Judge Davies became
oclver not settled in detail until the 25th OF NOvem
ber two days after the appointment was actually made
cited decision OF the Court Of Appeals, reported in
Seldom that by virtue OF the change In the practice made
10y the CODE such appointment clothes the receiver
with power the entire estate, from the date OF tho
had aled his bond as receiver on the morning Of the 2
OF November the effect Of which was TO vest him with
power the whole Of the property OF the corporation
nom the date OF the order appointing him and although
the order settled the 18th limited his right TO ako
Yet he stood IN this before the Court holding legal
lille as receiver to the property OF every Kind OF the
tina receiver appointed by the United States Court ought
20 give way before him, He made this claim, first, upon
the ground that the appointment OF that receiver was
obtained by deception aud cOlusOn and In proof OF this
he cited the fact that N violation OF an injunction or the
pose Of the property IN question, and while the
motion made IN that Court for the appointment
evening Of the ed ~ November the Erie Railway COM
pany by third party, had como before Judge OF the
name OF whelplcy-the allegations In which the Com
panys attorney had IN effect Acknowledged to be true
obtained the appointment OF Receiver, who was author
~ -! a and sceiTities Of Tie road: although the
uaue OF Whclplcy ts face only involved conpara
lively paltry sum But further. this plainly cOlusive
orton tre Frc COMPANY was in direct voaiian Of the
injunction OF the State tribunal, which had already OBJ
tanned jurisdiction OF the matter aud he thought that
even II II put the principle OF comfy between
courts the United states Court would say that
such fragrant disregard OF state tribunal should
rot be tolerated lie would not however put II upon
that ground hut would argue the question upon its
merits Apart the fact that the appointments Of jay
Gould by Judge Of the United states Court had Deen
fraudulent and colusyey obtained, he cOnended as
legal proposition that Receiver Davies, holding by his
appointment general title 20 a the property had the
superior claim aud that SIR Could II recognized az ALL
must take in subordnaton to Receiver Davies ana must
account 10 him powers OF Mr. Gould as receiver
wero limited and when lac should have exhausted then
who was take the surplus OF the propertyf clearly,
the receiver Of the whole property, appointed py he
state Court. The way to get Zee from the
wa for The United states Court to recognize Mr. Davies
A. tho legal receiver Who wound then be clothed with full
tyeu II any right OF action would then exist In other
pacs growing out Of their holding spurious stock there
would necessity for their coming into Court; they
could present their claims 10 the receiver nnd he coud
adudicHte Them; a1a , h oid no ycyIv ib ann 81
the Court ouisretched TO protect this property aud II
sued than the Court itself This would be AZ once the
easiest and the NJ iu-i rav ~ settling The matter.
Judge Nelson--I Ia call your attention. Mr Davis
10 question that may be- ia his case and may perhaps,
affect the issue that you are particularly ~,
and that is What cc,t viii the making OF Ar Belmont
Company by th, aucllary and supplemental proceed
ng andy reason OF which he VIII bo entitled 10 all the
benefits of the suit as n be had been original party
what effect win that position OF his have upon his SUIT In
Mr. Dsyls~Tiat. perhaps had better be answered by
/ Alr Bcmouts counsel. ar Rapallo ,,
suit In tie state Court founded upon the right of Mr.
Belmont as holder Of iega stock " the Erie Railway
which Is spurious aud It holder OF that spurious
stock that lac rass TO DO made party 20 ins SUIT an1c
| ierent suits. 800 1901, q,
the other he stakeholder Interested IN haYnS the
/ trust well performed by his Irustets
| ARGUMENT oP Mr. sToUGHroN
Mr. StoughtOn said that this case which Is somewhat
ovcrgfown with papers and with the various views sug.
grsfed by counsel IL rather confused ana ne Wouu
vJavoT To evolve the real questions before the Court
the ouestinns really material 10 the inquirer and 10 the
Adjudication TO be made here The questions WINCH hise
are nrre,ted Ia the Court upon two petitions made
NV Mr. Belmont and his partners claiming the benefit OF
proceedings the suit brought by Whepey against tue
ir, railway a. NOT a. A complainant but In the Ian
gage OF his petition defendant. saying, your pc
tuoners claim the benefit OF this suit, and nasmuch as
they cannot be compliments therein without ousng TINS
HE az
admitted be heard herein IA defendants ANA nave the
same riont a. N they were complanants" Inc other pc
s,,S a., ~, ooyi of ay Gould as Receiver aud
the appointment in his place OF judge Dawes Tue gen
era gr9unG upon Ria iigaiop s defendant pre-
csely ns II he plaintiff, IA tms lie states TO me
Court with crcumocullon shu cau,lon lov'"so ,ne ,
IS evidently quesOnable that he possesses some soeA
such as tho complainant III TINS SUIT say
he is the owner Of ana mbon 'I ,Ss s san,n
relief that the complainant II 10 his Belmont claims NOT
only the benefit Of the adudlcatios Mheh my 10 ,hp
stockholders similarly situated, but he claims also the
ana for which n Receiver should be appointed to take
care or Now coming into this court rs he does askn
for the benefit Of these prSreedgs prSmS and se
suicenGy of the complaint for some relief ana ne must
20 hand n hand with tho s9mpnant " S paves 70
the appointment as Receiver In place Of Mr. Gould rests
~" ciais nut forward Ina behalf OF belmont Judge
Davies that on the ?3d OF Nov last he sappolnte
RcceveIby Judge OF the supreme Court OF the state OF
Newyk moi only OF the supposed fund IN this court,
but OF all the property and effects of the Ere Railway
Company, with authority 20 reach and operate IL as
though he himself the corporation solely aud no
says because he Is certcated to this court IN tat OK
traornary aud unprecened capacity lie II entitled 10
sort OF prior right over all others be appointed To the
recoyershp TO this fund OF tsOo0O00 II VIII be seen
ne we procced with this case that order appointing
Judge Davies Receiver is utterly void made by Court
having authority 10 make It, irrespective OF the very
extraordinary proceedings which led 10 its being made
without hearing defendants counsel the result Of which
transferred this great road to IA single individual with
fun authority and deal with 10 ~ he might see NJ
| "A
though had been issued by mob Ia the street THIS
sal Mr. ghton said with great respect for Judge
% erlnnh nr whnse hnneaiY mud nnritY OF Intention In