New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1870-03-29
THE COURTS.
THE ERIE-yANDERBILT WAR.

| CONSIDERATION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SUITS
In the Supreme Court, at Special Term, yes
before Judge Barnard suit entitled the Erie
Railway Company ag Cornelius Vanderbilt, for tho re-
coyery OF 8, 100000 IN cash and stocks, was called
Mr. Dudley Field replied to the argument OF Mr. Beach
on motion to dismiss the complaint After stating the
ground upon which this suit brought, he remarked
that the only question TO bring before the con
complaint has been proved and that precise state OF
facts has been proved II snch state OF facts has
the relief asked for The answer OF Mr. Vanderbilt adj
mits that the action compromised but that he was
ceived from smith, Could Martin Co. s2.5OoOOo. for
which he received stock His testimony shows
that he received from Jay Gould s00O0o III money and
bonds OF the Boston, Hartford and Erie Railway Com
pauy. The testimony OF Mr.. Vanderbilt he said was con,
Trajectory The testimony OF Fisk and Gould showed
that while MIR Vanderbilt In his testimony had talked
it as sale to Prev e had IN rea TAKEN o nr as
them 10 get the money from the Erie Railway COMPANY
counsel were evidently misplaced His reputation
not unsned in tins community TINS Is not tne nrst
gigantic corporation and grasped their money.
TO sure he rich, but what had he done for the
erected no Cooper Institute, Girard College. or
Smithsonian Institute. monument i,l ana exist.
that he had wrung from tins corporation under the rooi
OF which might be wrten-he would not say ITO ths
great robber but ITO the great appropriation OF other
mens goods" He was the tempter. NOT the tempted
lie was me lne Senr OF s S amd
when the the other side has finished his pleas
further and states that Messrs Fisk aud Gould
scrupulous advenurcrs who have made the Erie road
such thing. defy him anywhere to produce proof;
and beg your Honor to observe that. so far US tho
testimony goes the character OF these parties stands
thus: Vanderbilt, all INSCRIPTIONS operator, having
He'n the market on Erie Railroad stock, casting
about for some means to replace the money
which he aa Lost au and 70 ar MAKE rS in
this Court having for pretended object the good Of the
iectt he tXtr
brings by Of these suits such pressure Ia bear
that they did transfer this s,JoOOO. receiving in
change thus stock Now istthis this minded public
spirited citizen of uusulied rerutatoni The character
OF Fisk and Could stand out ms different hight Men
who, IN minority OF two IN Board of H. stood out at
great RISK and personal for period seven
months Ia robbery at the last moment for set
temen finding that they were practically overthrown
by their compeers finding That settlement was agreed
and would be carried through, at the last moment
that lion and put the yo only sfsn up S
Cont and In this cause, and that stain they took pains
The counsel side has quoted the maxim IN
par deco potor est cond'tio def,'de'hs This would
blt had consped Together grab money from the Erie
treasury and Mr. Vanderbilt succeeded IN obtaining al
the spells they had sought to obtain their share Of the
plnnder In suit But this Is not the case. The Erie
Railway was asking TO annu the fraud OF Its Directors
deals with them deals with them Trustees. and II he
he may at amy time be- held liable for T. 0ne
knowingly obtaining trust funds wrongfuly becomes
bonds might even be- followed into the hands Of third
parties ratification by the principal will not find him
long he is under the influence OF tho agent III FL
bridge Schel Work. and the other Directors who III
the Company had passed ratification OF the contract
| every day, it would have awaited nothing
Judge BarnardThe motion To disnisslthe complaint
made on Flday week. and to which this reply has been
The audiences OF the decision apparently quite
prsed the counsel on both sides. Sir. David Dudley
Field had prepared an elaborate argument (Which WAS
printed opposition 10 the motion. and the counsel for
Mr. Vanderbilt had also prepared points IN which to
argue further the motion for dismissal After counsel
Tor MI Vanderbilt had recovered from their surprise. Mr.
| DAVIS said Are We not 10 be allowed 10 replyf
Judge BBrnard-Tere is no question OF your right TO
! reply, bit thought the argument Was closed.
Mr. Beacl-YOur Honor will permit to say that this
premature decision has taken as by surprise My
opinion Is now however that your Honor having
the that proposed TO adopt aud acquesce
OF course IN the ruling OF your Honor We acquiescs
under the circumstances we have cited. but OF
cept 10 that ruling. But It would be desirable your
Honor Would give ns some more definite grounds
which yor make this ruling There are two grounds Of
action, and We do not understand whether you retain
THIS action on the theory that tho legality of IL has
been proved or whether you refuse this motion the
| other theory.
Judge BarnardI had supposed that you did not in.
tend 70 reply; indeed, IL Is seldom that counsel
reply In regard To the ground on which deny tho
motion: According to all the testimony that Is now be-
fore Inc. " the Court were jury We would
deem 1t proper TO send this question before them on the
Transaction IN stock or bonds belonging this
Mr.. Beael-Wouid u he improper for to ask your
Honor whether the plaintiff has right TO recoverf
Judge Barnard-since the adjournment from the last
meeting have looked into this complaint very carefully
and without stating or rather contentng myself with
stating that while am not clear whether they can re-
this a. O0 IL the testimony prove fraud ON the
part OF defendants the plaintiffs
| Mr. Beach-You will please understand ia a. reouost
ing from your Honor that the question fraud sent
10 the jury for trial and Honor will grant US an or
ceptIon from the ruling. and also from the general
The case then adjourned until tho 2Gh Of April a.
IL u, III.