New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-08-10
THE EXPRESS WAR.

THE MERCHANTS UNION AND AMERICAN la
PRESS CoMPANIEs-OPINION BY JUDGE CAR
DOZO.
In the Supreme Court, Chambers, yesterday,
before Mr. Justice Cardozo the suits of McVickar agt
Ross &c; Harris agt Ross, &C.; Williams agt Ross, &c;
in re- Haskin agt Ross &c Fargo, &c, agt Blatehford
&C.. came up for decision
II NAV be remembered that certain of the stockholders
of the Merchants Union Express Company some months
ago opposed and brought suits in opposition to the con-
soidation Of the Merchants Union and American Elk
press Companies and that at later day Mr. Fargo the
President Of the united companies commenced an action
The matter came before Mr. Justice Cardozo motions
in the different suits for an injunction to dissolve an In
eXJudge Allen Receiver and to stop all the e- su5
except the latter The motions were an efguSG
Judge Cardozo-he not appointing Receiver,
Merchants Union property he does not remove Judge
Allen, and only retains the 0uneuoh so lar aS 10
the old stockholders from being foreclosed The follow
By caTdo1o i'm the arst three above entitled eases
Of the Merchants Union Express Company: and in them
and the matter foJthy above entitled am asked TO
remove the Hon. VIM F. Allen from the position OF Re
cever OF certain portion OF such property To which he
Sgt' Ross &c fhave,conciudedto deny these appca
lions except hereafter stated for the following reasons
son sA tEa' mnder ' the crcn@stances, anneces
| sSry for the fun protection of the plaintiffs,
some OF the deendsns The amount OF dssentent stock
amoant Of stock which has the OF
consultations and while am Of opinion that dissenting
stakeholder in these Oint stock companies Ike retiring
partner in ordinary partnership Is not to be Obliged
certainly ct all events the press
TO that effect TO surrender MS interest III e properly 10
his remaining associates at an estimated valuation;
tanned by sale in the only manner reeogzea by aw
for closing partnerships In the absence OF express
ulatOns Yet the great disparity between the amount OF
asserting aud that dissenting and that just regard
for the interest Of all the parties concerned In the con
sodated Company lead to the conclusion that such
order should, aud think can, nowbe made. without
disturbing the present condition Of affairs as Will make
a.
definitely the rights OF the parties with that VIEW
while denying the motion for Receiver and the
injunction issued, except so far as TO prevent any
do only condition that the defendants furnish
bond with suretes to be approved by OF the Justices
ali the properly which belonged to tho Merchants
Union Express 1d c (which was trans
50 required by ithe Judgment, be delivered into the
pose as II may appoint and also that In case by use
lapse Of time otherwise. any OF the property shall
payment In cash, up to the fu value 70 DO asceTained
hereinafter mentioned This, think, VIII protect
tfs have absolute right, though II is very common,
and indeed most usual to DO TO have sale at the
has been handed over to Receiver Their right ey
are entitled to have the property sold is to have IL sold
they can claim is that the property shall be
preserved kuntl Judgment so that their rights,
enforced do not understand the OF spcer agt.
HaresceuP decided by Judge DAILY on the goth OF April
ment TO conflict with the general rule that sale is tho
only method OF closing up partnership n the partners
other method. understand Judge DAILY 10 have done
substantially what have determined to do here He
obliged the defendant to give security so that the plain.
tin should be safe when final judgment obtained To
James NJ Sweeney esq to ascertain and report all the
property OF every name and description, and the
chants Union Express Company, and which was
transferred TO the consolidated company and upon the
bond which the consolidated company must give as
condition Of retaining the property, pending the ltiga
le have Intentionally avoided expressing any opinion
on the merits or on the various questions discussed before
me- believing that In the view have taken Of the present
necessities Of the ought TO leave them 10 be dis.
posed OF upon 1 regular trial Respecting the spplea-
ship which he holds, l think 1t sufficient TO say
sodd "e 40 not mean to BE unde S
parties took to procure that RecelveTship, yet
court ana uhder It's CONTROL ana that the gentleman who
holds the position 10 personally wholly unobjectonabe,
ana might very well have been selected for such trust
IN perfectly proper and Observation-Disclosures pro.
ceeding do not think that II is necessary for me
ofFargo, &C. agt Blatchford &C. In which the plaintiffs
seek 10 have the consolidation agreement confirmed and
they ask the continuation OF the preliminary Injunction
which has been granted. IL may be doubted whether
20 determine the question, because after the dsp0-
siuon that have made Of the other
tnat the defendants IN this suit can obtain any arma
tive relief that they may show themselves entitled to-
whether Of the character demanded in their complaints
In the other cases or otherwise and that the litigation
Will be presented In more convenient form than III con-
Quoted In many suits, no harm be OceasiOned by con-
nuing the injunction IN this case and therefore think
II best not to Interfere, q notion Wh tle fem
pOrary order but 10 leave the defendants 10 the more
solemn and regular course OF demurrer IN they see
NJ, instead OF tgating the whole merits of the con
oyersy as they can do, In tho convenient form which
the plaintiffs afford them by this action insist upOn
their right 20 determination Of the legal objections
which they raise TO the complaint An order carry
these views into effect may be prepared by either party
ana VIII be settled notice. and either party NAV mako
such suggestions Tor my eonsderaon as he may desire