The New York herald., 1869-12-01
THE RAMSEY SUIT.
sUpHEME C0URT-CHAMBERS.

The RAMSEY SUEEs
.>~o~~~o~~~~~>~~~~~-N>~--
sUPHEME C0URT-cHaMBERs.
Before Judge Barnard
The Erie Rail,oGv Company us. Joseph II. Ramsey.
Mr. Field then brought forward this suit. He SAID
this action came up on an order to show cause why
the injunction issued by Judge Barnard should not
be made perpetual.
Ex-Judge Porter, on behalf OF Mr.. Ramsey op-
posed the notion and read In opposition the follow
ing aG1davits:-
AFFIDAVIT OF d. b. EATON.
The Erie RdittcaV COntpdity rS. Joseph H. Ramsey
ana Others-City and county OF Neto York, SD
b. Eaton beng duly sworn, says he has read the
copy OF the complaint and INJUNCTION served on him
in tins suit ana that no afdavit copy OF any afi
davit the urat to the complaint mas been served
him therein, and thai he was one OF the attorneys
for MIR. Ramsey when the suit OF Sald Ramsey re-
ferred TO In the complaint herein was commenced,
and for some time thereafter was one OF such ator
news. That the allegations OF the seventh paragraph
OF the complaint not correct and on information
and belief ne that the allegations OF the eighth
paragraph as TO the feelings OF MI. Ramsey ana the
purpose of his suit incorrect And he further
avers thai neither deponent nor Henry A. Taller are
attorneys or said Ramsey IN his SAID suit; that all
the allegations oil the complaint herein as TO cou
ana fraud are unIrue and that the facts as TO
an attorney appearing and being procured fOr the
Erie Railway Company III the seventh paragraph or
elsewhere referred TO- are as hereinafter stated, and
that there nothing either colusive or fraudulent
as to said attorney putting In notice OF appear
ance. And on Information ana belief depOnent AYERS
the Erie Railway COMPANY did not employ attorneys
to appear for It, as IS alleged IN the tenth paragraph
the allegations OF the eleventh paragraph OF the
complaint herein are incorrect, except that
deponent n qua Draw an Ieyuar 0aer made aag sna
entered ut the same tune as the orders OF injunction
and SUSPENSION aforesaid, and SAID order Tor re-
celver was duly served On the plantf herein on the
oath INST; aud deponent further states on lnfOrIna
ton and belief (and III reference TO the administra-
ton OF previous receiver OF the ROAD OF the planf
for whom deponent was counsel and during winch
It's affairs were much better and more prontably
managed and It's credit stood lar higher than OF ate
that receiver would not throw the business OF the
plaintiff Into confusion, impair its credit or cause 1t
TO sustain damage, but would cause the road to be
more economically and successfully conducted than
under the existing management, and would put an
end to fraudulent and illegal acts, and would restore
the ROAD to public conndence ana IN regard 70 tne
says the orders served We're duly certified copes
but the copies left In making such service were not
certified, nor did they purport TO De certned Ana
deponent AYERS the facts the putting In OF an
appearance for the Erie Railway Company by an
attorney other than by Messrs. Field Shearman IN
SAID suit OF Ramsey vs. Jay Gould ana others
were as foows:-On the morning or the 24th inst.
service was made OF the summons, complaint IN
junction and order for the suspension OF eight out OF
tue seventeen directors Of said company one OF sald
eight peing MIR. Lane, It's counsel, sad service hav-
ing been personally made on Its secretary for the
company. Said Injunction and order did not allow
any one OF such suspended directors after suCh sus
pension, to appear or engage any one 20 appear as
attorney for said company In the suit or in any way
to act for or In the name OF the company or
or on Its behalf. The functions OF said eight persons
were In oil particulars suspended, as having shown
themselves Ia the opinion or the Court to be unit to
act for or represent said company considerable
time before the secretary mad been served on ms
arrival Ut the station the summons, complaint, In
junction and order OF suspension had been In the
hands OF persons with directions to serve them on
the suspended directors, and deponent supposed
they had been or would at once be so served. OF
the nine directors left unsuspended one lived al
Buffalo and one a. and o. nn necessity ss
ing could be held, and deponenL being
with the person who made the service on
the company. suggested 10 the secretary that
1t was important Tor the protection OF the company
that nc should name some one to appear for the
company and look its interests till the board could
meet; but tnat officer expressed q Discrimination to
take any action IN the matter and was In doubt as
to his duty IN such an emergency and deponent
was not disposed to urge upon hm duty that might
call down upon him the hostility Of the suspended
directors. Dep0nent then went to the residence OF
Mr.. Diven, an unsuspended director, whom he had
long known, to inform HIM of what had been done
and to urge him to cause prompt action 10 be TAKEN
by the unsuspended majority OF the board OF direct
Ors that the companys affairs should not suffer
for OF oversight before the board could meet.
Deponent found Mr.. Owen only q few moments re-
turned from Elmira, and briefly explained to him
what had been done and was intended and stated
there might De need OF some one to appear as
attorney Tor the company before the court could
meet and that as SAID suit was brought not in hos
tty to the interests OF said company but to protect
It's creditors from the further abuses OF directors
whom the court had suspended, IL would be highly
injurious to the company 10 have said suspended
directors control the cOmpany's defence through
attorney alter Jtclr own suspension lOr GROSS
neglect OF duty. Mr.. Owen, recognizing the need or
m attorney and the improperly OF his being selected
by the suspended directors, expressed some doubt
whether any director could authorize on appear
ance. Deponent stated his conviction tnat ~ was
necessary that the exigency in the conpanys affairs
should pe promptly met by the remaining directors,
so a not make IL ut once necessary that the re-
cciyer already appointed ne order Tor which oepo-
nept eXhDited t0 said Dlyen) should take pos
session. Tne whole matter beng surprise upon
Mr. Owen, he may not nave Intended TO be
understood as deponent certainly understood him;
Int upon the name OF Mr.. Runke being mentioned
AS d reliable and competent person TO act as attor-
ney, deponent understood Mr. Diven TO authorize
and desire him deponentl to have Mr. Runkle ap.
pear for the company lll the Board could meet ana
deponent accordingly conveyed such request 10 Mr.
kunKle, aud Mr.. Rankle put IN an appearance the
same day for the company; and M. Nuhklc, as ue.
p0nent then thought and now thinks, was at least
as free to act as unencubered In acting slngly
In the interests OF the Erie Railway Company as at
torneys can be who, acting at the same time lor
Messrs. could, Fisk and Lane, would have IL ior
their duty TO iorce them back INTO their places us
directors. DepOnent heard O rufnor the next day
tMr. owen having been In the meantime informed Of
tne appearance by Mr.. Runkle) that Mr.. Diven mad
SAID that deponent had misunderstood him
as 70 giving direction for such appearance;
ana thereupOn deponent called on Mr.. }Diven and
SAID and Also wrote TO him that unless he tsald
Dven stated In writing to deponent that ne desired
nent should insist on the prompt revocation or sa
appearance, and Mr.. Owen moi 80 stating deponent
requested such reyocation and Mr. Runke revoked
Buch appearance on the morning OF the 2gth inst
and deponent stated said TACT to Mr.. Lleld And
deponcnt further says that action whatever was