New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1868-12-14
THE ERIE WAR.
THE ARGUMENT FOR A REHEARING OF ORDER
APPOINTING JUDGE DAVIES REcEIVER-THL
PLEA OE JAY GOULD AND JAMES FISK, JR.

APPOINTING JUDGE DAVIES RECEIVER-THE
FLEA OE JAY GOULD AND JAMES FISK, JR.
August Belmont agt. The Erie Railway and
argument for rehearng and In fact for
reversal Judge 5utherands orders made In tho suit OF
counter order Mcintosh against the brought
Thursday but on that day nothing was done eh
in the suits and an Adjournment taken to Saturday
at 81 on that day Messrs +. w. Stoughton Wander
poel Porter and Buri present on behalf OF FISK
and Gould, Messrs. RapallO. Barlow and Emmett on
the other side. Judge Davies read short affidavit 10
show that he had already incurred considerable expense
receiver when the case was opened by Mr. Stoughoh
for his side
here one which was seldom granted The result OF
that order TO transfer the management OF company
having some rs to 100 millions TO the charge OF one man
With the greatest respect for the Judge who had made H.
could but think this view was mistake The nrse
question for Court of EQUITY was who were the parties
persons desired to the OF another as cover
aud under that cover sought 10 sap tho very Foundations
OF justice that alone was sufficient TO compel on C9hp
of Equity, to send them from the court 10 that
point he proposed address himself FIRST Suppose u
should turn out that certain parties, having Wna S
bring these suits for selfish purposes and mad conspeu
to nd and induce an honest holder OF the stock ny per
suason, or to buy him by promise 70 pear al Tue v1
penses of the litigation would not this have been enough
TO refuse the relief asked by the bill That ths was e
fact he proposed TO show and first complaint was sup
ported by two aldaylts OF Work and Drew who, WIN
third, bore expenses OF the litigation Now the relief
asked by the bill for an injunction aud Receyer
relief which could not help stakeholder, Tor IL wouu
only put at hazard the interests OF the Company ana re-
persons short OF the stock would desire. . ,,
Mr.. Stought0n read In connection with tns MI FISK
account OF the interviews with Drew Look he said, NJ
the rascaty and infany OF this person These state
ments are in fact confessed the aidavs were na o
have leaped TO deny these allegations they could Aau
the other side any contradiction OF this AFFIDAVIT All.
MIR. Rapallo-But two persons could contradict this
Mr. Fisko and Mr.. Drew. lie had not called on either
for additional aGldays. Ho was not here to defend Mr.
Mr. stoughton said the action Of Judge Sutherland was
based ON Mr.. Drow's affidavit Suppose that AFFIDAVIT
had included this matter which Mr.. Drew confessed
TO be true OF his purposes In connecting this acton
Would noJudge sutherland bavesgurned tho application
He called attention to the undenled affidavit OF Mr. FISK
that onehal OF Mr.. Belmonts expenses were to be
borne by Drew and the other Dy W9rk ana scne ana
were looking for plaintiff and subsequently told MN
they had found Mr.. Belmont
It on different state OF facts from that presented here
and he counsel would have no hesitation IN his KNOW
edge OF the opinions OF Chancelors Of all times In leaving
the here far merely rs to tho vacaiing OF mat
order so much he had said as TO the parties Now as 10
the bill itself Mr. Stoughton alluded TO tho circumstances
under which the order granted and remarked that
probably Judge Davies should have been made Immortal
ior there was limitation OH the time during which he
was to this road and relief was asked IN the COM
plant which went ahead OF aud limited the appointment
OF Receiver But for other orders Of this Court Judge
Davies virgin to this Kind OF business, would have had
TO run It, Now there were IN charge OF TINS road some
IL men. many OF them known Dy the Court and hnte
and known 70 the community a. honorable aud able men,
who. after getting nd OF piIatleal crew VINO wero ass
Ing the interests OF the road had been unanimously
elected 10 manage this road. For tho misconduct OF
three the Court removed all aud placed In the
compliment him 10 say that be WAS better lifted TO
conduct railroad than some other lawyers the injunc
legitimate purposes OF this BILL III some angel could
have stenPod, IN ana informed Judge sutherland and
order IL the OF the system which made 1t the
that statements would be- 70 made a TIC
express purpose OF making apparent for such
than jrsice and that the Judge after having his
iDHamed by these pdrto statements could scarcely
which was so important tn tho administration OF
Justice SO he did not wonder that the honest aud upright
F.A. ha nv fGau 49,
ments submitted to him &c part,, showed some impa-
thence In the hearing Of this case In crclsing Judge
Sutherland he wished further than he might
crcising for whom be had tho highest love aud
spcct but Judges were but clay andcould bo nodded
raised IN the Judicial mind BY ne Prey,Ons rsPreseSts
and without all their papers prepared Now they had
papers which at that time they had not It had been
ferTed from one Judge TO another bat tho many judges
of Court but ono Judge, and II would be
suit 10 the Court to say that ono would not act Impair
Ills first proposition was that on the bn ~ taken ~
true the relief granted could be given aud the
case resworn lac would De content leave II there No
specific charges were made OF acknowledgement against
any but these three The other fourteen charged
with nothing except submitting 10 tho control OF the
some OF these fourteen were la tho habit Of
CATION physical ort being uscd 60 control Now what
there TO take tie control OF TIE Company out
N Il might be done TOT the holder % 900 shares u might
for the holder If for the misconduct ~ three a.
retofs then for the misconduct Of one Al least Chan
ceor, before exercising such 9n extraordinary power,
should
ensi Those were In tho elementary books lie council
had Examined the elementary books Rud In them DO had
found 30 such power no such power was right Chan
rcor should evo relief Commensurate with the wrung.
To enon wrong doors, not 10 take 10 nom tho whole III
rection; not 10 railroad; not 10 manage hank. but
10 restrain and remove the fraud doors, ana Ohshy d
rect the filing Of their places The powers OF equity hre
aud not to be extended unnecessarily; ito
hand NOT 10 DO stretched ont oT Destruction But
they lad authOHty-couustl quoted the case OF Howell
looked beyond Receiver. and asked a specific relief
through him. but the Court held that could not appoint
A Receiver the application 81 attoCkholdcr lilo also
nted the case OF Robertson against uons IN Herman,
l TO the same purpose That the Trustees % corpora
lion could not be relno'ed CA Tie Application VI stock
holder.
No oasc ne claimed had ever conc far as 20 qualify
The tmONm ottrustccsoi 20 ihke tle nhnAb"inot OF s
concerns out OK taer hands ON such complaint lie bad
read these cascs 70 show that the Court bad no general
II removal depended on tho statute e read the statute
10 show what tho Court could do. On prStd IIoic
u roes misconduct Court Of Equity might suspend
director on conviction proof that TO- after due Trial IL
m ght remove him. aud might direct their places 10 DO
llled By new election Thus, FISK Could and Lane. 4
guilty, might DO hItt suspended, then removed,
aud the afar' OF the company DO adminisiersd
statute even provided Tor tho creation OF new
directors, IL all were removed. At whose instance
Attorney Generals, at credors az that ofan ofcer
d the c , having general sqperniend9nee ny
ocu0n were ont OF tie way the regular course would
have been, temporary suspension. removal. ana d.
reeon TO MI the places Of tho tort essors suppose tho
Court were acting entirely free ofa statutory limitation
what would be done, taking tho hill 10 be true1 The
Court would see these directors charged with wrongdo
Ing; II would remove them; IL would lind fourteen or M
teen directors not 50 charged It would leave Them alone
IL would decree against the wrongdocrs roparnti Of
their wrong; IL would fad OF stock and d.
rect It's proceeds 10 be gathered together for ito redomp
ton. That W IA far rs the Court would. calm frame
Of mind, But this bill asks the Court 10 do That may
please tho plaintiffs. Ito hfst prayer S. that all
the directors may he removed. Mr. st0ughton read
the prayer ~ the bill commenting H. The object of
tue b. he said was Receiver What tho pnrposei
IL In Mr. Drcws eyes, that this stock must not 20
up Coupled with these various charges of the Issue Of
spurious stock the appointment Of Receiver. generally
considered 10 be tue destruction % corporation IL was
hoped that the stock would be depressed idea being
spread abroad that there spurious stock that no
man could tell whether his OF the spurious or gn
Inc.