The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-06-07

eive title IS the defends III haa SsSn fe
peatedly decided. both by the Circuit Courts
and by the Supreme Court Of the United
States, that all acts Of the Confederate Gov
ernment, or the government Of State hostile
to the United States and prejudicial to the
rights Of citizens Of States adhering to the
Union: are void, and convey no title.
Perdicaris Is o citizen of an adjoining State.
1t is proper to add that the Gasllght Com
pany has acted upon the principle Just stated.
1t is true that it erased from the books the
names Of the original stockholders whose stock
was sold under tue sequeStration act, and lssu.
ed new certificates to the purchasers. But
this was during the war. Since the war ended,
it has reinstated the names Of the original
stockholders, and recognized fully their right
to dividends. The certificates issued to the
purchasers from the Confederate receiver are,
however. still outstanding.
Perdicaris, as owner Of original stock, claims
the inte-positiQn Of the court against the de-
fendants, who, in virtue Of their purchases
from the receiver. assert q claim to be recog-
nized as stockholders upon an equality with
himself. 1l tyg Dsss @aa sSs..1
GOOD Ssss An equity. II the whole stock had
belonged to stockholders residing in other
States, and had been sold under the sequestra-
tion act, and it can be maintained, after the
war, that the purchasers are entitled to recog.
milton equally with the original stockholders,
1t is very Gear the value Of the stock, to the
latter, would be reduced just one halt.
Tnis shows very clearly the equity Of Mr. Per-
be relieved except by Court Of Equity.
But it is insisted that the company itself
should bring suit, and that Pardicl lris being
only q stockholder, cannot be heard in this
court. We do not agree to this view. It is
not denied that u the company had refused to
institute proceedings the stockholders might
do SO: There is no principle oflsquity admin
tion in Court Of Equity. t is. true m that the
corporation represents the corporate interests,
and 10 this case 1t would. perhaps. be most ap-
propriate that the corporatiOn should bring o
suit for it's own protection, and for the protec-
ton Of the rights of the original stockholders.
But it has at least neglected and omitted to 10
80. Under such circumstances any, stockholder
may proceed. We think the bill fled in this
case by tho plaintiff Tor his own benefit, and
for the benefit Of his sco-stockholders is prop
erly conceived. and that upou the case made
by IT, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief
asked. The demurrer nust be overruled, and
the motion to dissolve the Injunction must be
denied. The defendants viii have leave to
answer under the rule. sf
e. W. BAYNARD, ExECU UroR, vs. THE uNTTEp
STATES COTTON COMPANY.
Several ques ions OF much interest were
cass; upon all of which, except one, we shall
refrain from expressing an opinion, since the
decision OF that one must determine the con-
troversy before us. q
against the United States Cotton Company, a
corporation created by the laws OF New York,
and having it's principal place of business in
New York, process was sued out against the
United States Sea Island Cotton Company.
This process was returned with an acceptance
Of service by the agent OF the United States
Cotton Company having charge Of its business
IN South Carolina endorsed upon it.
# There wes no other service before the COM
pany, nor did the company eyer appear to the
sult. Every step taken In it was BY the plain
TN alone, and against Tho defendant as Ia de-
The fandamental question in the case is.
therefore,, was the United States Cotton Com
pany made party to the snit by the accept
anoe OF service BY its agent q l a. ~. wlig
No proof Of authority 10 the agent to accent
service ef process i0 ebehaas OF the company is
In the case. Acceptance. therefore, has no
otner legal eteet than simple service upon the
agent. ,,..-,s-.se.. Z, ~ .,9e al's "
II seemed to be admitted, that tile Cotton
Company was stransacting % very considerable
business IN G0uth Carolina, ana Is was argued
that service upon It's agent enstru sted with
the management OF this busipess must be re-.
garded es service upon the company.
but suppose partnership in New York do
ing BUSINESS In South OerolinA. colld that
partnershtp be- madS aSaSIssDio 10 d enit al law
an South Carolina, by service on its agent hsre2
y the case OF = coSporataon y must be In
this: that IL is even less hAbls to be sued d.
rectly in any othcrs stste than that by whose
laws tt exists and aot6, VI
This view does mot leAye the plaintifY without
remedy. He riny bring his action OF trespass