New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-04-01
TIE COURTS.
THE RAMSEY-ERIE SUIT.

OPINION OF JUDGE PARKER.
In the suit of Joseph H. Ramsey against
Jay Could James Fisk jr Frederick A. Lane and Others
the defendants made motion before Judge Parker at
the Owego Special Term Of the Supreme Court, to dis
miss plaintiffs complaint, to perpetuay stay his pro-
ceedngs. The motion argued by David Dudley
Field and Thomas G.. Sherman for defendants, and
Henry Smith and N. W. Peckham for tho plaintiff
Judge Parker has Just given his decision denying the
motion Of defendants The following is the substance OF
tie opinions:
This action brought by plaintiff creditor ,toskhO.isr
TIE Erie Railway COMPANY for the Paoe among Gher engs o. CON
charged Ii. complaint With having The control o. It's ssar
10 account the sud DISPOSITION Of
s fn and propei sn upon allegations gross
respe such funds aud property ObtAi.
complaint hs. been served appear any
Ia .hs condition OF the the Of to. Dc
r. s appointed nsdcr sec" sol Of The Code
.tss sGSsT tor az o S ,n s P g. Soi
portions Of e complaint c9ttd be stricken oat as
sht eeran motion granted
sa term e. @ 'S s q 5e A1, g. I'D o. Z,
aud ia h6hon 70 be noticed BY ID"
The dismiss the complaint psrpeq,y to stay The
coSpt bat an .emPt TO pyer. sbi as the prsce.s Of 10.
Court 70 purposes and revenge ec%p The dsai
,o c.a,s s,S. 10 Sp s ., o o,E 90
onls shel e claims o.S VIZ i Haow.ds 'n ne ast 2,
action That plaintiffs in fact creditor Of the Bs
Es bs ioe The Of the st the Comps",
payment Of al the demands which be eai,
bsuds ana stock mentioned compliant
the c sno ne & Is Claimed iS to ' ss tae
a sP' SI hs . s f 20 oSe Sts G n 25S SD -
10 res. TO the ast sroand Of the motion thlnE clear sit
involved litigation respecting the control Of the Albany ani
and es be- believed 1Bs ,d eios, s.d Ssa 3 Of sss
sg', ssr OF '@T l, ,aa ,1 "s,re 3Ia % 81 toe
from oie. Ias b. believed ,sy BAL Used ihs neg Of Be kn;
Compn fr the obtaining ooo,roi Of ht ,euplnt .nd
person suthord bring
S defeat sa d.s.pS. f eanDs control Of che G.o,
aud lslu,hina Railroad asd to have them BROUGHT TO Ja'ce
stakeholder Of the e RAILWAY COMPANY authorizing bin to bring his
a. tive t asirg IT. sud The can py see hat be la, 20 er
tonoo eaas Of aeSn Or al he .. estoPre from projecting II.
# the Court Ire Court vii 70 that The judgment
IS s.nf N the sat /. erli,el 10 sd VII ts1s1siI;
y.n' r 9G sa Sr. PT,ygs 20 gGs ,'I e%i's our
be allowed ir tae abstract purpose Of bringing
remerfr the redress Of pvsosa him.
establishments Of justice imei.y afecios
sad that miles, be seeks redress Of this trd hOas
tbs very rs Bot p,rus il owner Of bs.s.
and stock Of the Company BE- eg perona interested es
whether Pata proceeding this acon for the purpose
ard tie JUDGMENT demanded the
Iis fs. S also 5 s % I'D
h s s@Sea 81 ~. Ts Dsl Me-, % & ti' 0o os veg
be % be regarded rather @o's and promoter OF e hsas o'ss
brugsg having become Invested sh the bsods
and s'oeA as he d Is rot bad f such . the CGui. wi e.ss
proceedings against good fh except where the guilty Wsrs
partie.
Goe,6sk and psnus oasA for this 10 Oh
that he fac. stated not % clearly proved a. render aeo
taai c ~ ~ .n,I Bat ~, lean Of none, n. so
responsible pay and Iothg that
ary understanding th,t h pl nes. c,nuO,b
pluta and the Court not ~arAHei ASSUMING III.
By DEFENDANTS ,ee"fd nd Of the AID
Ralsa, co%gsuy d,feodsst, have .res
he pr,.s to- b 1I iet b.t bs 8s l. ne osoer Of .sssr.i
hl issued by the Company boot ee- 'ho-s Also
siOckhoer drdan'. claim the pAstsha' STARE
,as Ia .Sa'. 10 sac, g As .ll' .oa TIE; &c = ~, Ss
gard part bs relief abeh he to .,. hn'sf Of tss .io,
proceed .tate " s'"elbo4.
Sec IS Of The statute DO not deem tncsss a ih. msaes
to 'nqe u be can a, ;Iae, be,rr S's toe r., T, rSse
properly fosng from The facts sti thea n,nl TIE case eAaIo
SsrPy'aai.5 "a iug proceeding. IN iSi. ,eti@o
ihe pa lut brhs' b .'ioe Oh Us '~g osh., ,o on 500
defendants the he .,oeshosr 'sss
Ia IS' ~ss we s Of tcp, made by the COMPANY snl~p.
sut that depends tor r. eseae u aa sa. upon zoe G % s
toe S%spap 70 ,e pia'a - Io . a.,",.,s the stss
0P,G 'le p~,9na & bSt t n,,s 10 dsss the pu
sLea 6C ie defendants prevail ias ba' The lslsssd
lac statute o. would be ssee. .sa, en~
Of the bonds aud stock euoe complaint Violation ois
statute 40 ,.mey reS Psrss.ss, td'~''d 'A '
Tao language Of zoe statute oles. No a,'s''y seasss
ssl turs bond. Op se'. 81, Of s,ss.ass
boob debt OF other A'Ag a69~" MN ss 'A-' AM o' We
now Isss,e ,hs phSua attorney may he ProAiNasd.
aae As.oeAhoer. be Affected y the 'ass To. Pares.s
ners dra, within le meaning Of 'ni, 'ss
p,O. .ud cannot be s,,,nel to ah., = So
ey lpelgled IL pAs. enh tsAs tAe paiesA' d" '