Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1870-07-18
The Opinion Of Chief Justice Chase,

touching certain railroad matters. Having
nnbished Judge Hills opinion in this case, we
arc requested to publish the following opinion
ii Judge Chase, also
The matter now submitted for consideration
arises upou a petition for the remission of ccr.
lain fines impcscd for contempt OF the order OF
this court by the district Judge sitting in this
cause at chambers.
The case in substance is this: The Alcxan-
dlia Railroad Company commenced 10 The
Alexandria county circuit court a suit IN equity
against the Washington, Alexandra and
Georgetown Railroad Company Tor the pur-
nose Of establishing its title 10 1ic railroad rom
| Alexandria to WASHINGTON, possession OF when
had been usurpcd by the defendant, 4 corpora,
lion irrcgularly aud iraudulcntIy organized
upon a pretended, but fictitious title. There
were numerous parties, plaintiffs and tcten
dants, to this suit who need not he mentioned.
The court decided the substantial controversy
in favor Of the complainantS, ami dccreCd the
restoration of the road; and, on appeal, thus
decree was affirmed 10y the Court Of Appeals oil
Virginia.
In the bill the complainant described itself as
the Washington and Alexandria Railroad Com.
parry, by James S. French, president.
While this suit was pending the Adams Tx.
press Company commenced a suit III this court
against William II. Malbury, the Washington,
| Alexandria and Georgetown Railroad Company,
and others, in which an order was made by tins
court Tor the appointment OF receivers oil the
road, who were in pOsS esSIon under the order
when the decree in the case Of ihe Washing
ton and Alexandria Railroad Company vs.. the
Washington, Alexandria and Georgetown Rail.
road Company was affirmed by the Virginia
Court Of Appeals.
The Adams Express Company Was not a
party TO the suit in the State court, Eor was
the Washington and Alexandria Railroad Conn
many = party to the suit in The Federal court.
The road, however, was in the possession o!
the officers OF the national court, who c1'lld not
be rightfuIly displaced, except ty an order "i
the court which appointed them.
A third suit was commenced in this court hS
S. NJ. Shoemaker against ). 5. French, the
object OF which was 20 restrain French rom
acting as President 81 the Washington and
Alexandria Railroad Company, personality or
by any agent, or in any way contrary To The III
tent Of certain contracts to Which he was Il par
~, dated December e, lSGI. In this suit IN
Injunction vas allowed, AMI a cross tlll was
filed by French. setting mp counter equities.
A decree has now been made IN thus ease ncr'
petuating the injunction under some mcdItlcA'
tons.
During the progress 81 tiCEC NalIou9 NIX
tons tho Washington and Alexandria Railroad
Company was reorganizci and upon 4 new
election Of officers Samuel NJ. Shoemaker was
chosen president, and certain other parties dr.
~rcctors, but the validity Of this organlzallon
and Of the new election IVES contested b. the
former president, French, and The members OF
tho old board. The questions thus Arising were
litigatcl in Il suit pending in this c1urt, to
which Shoemaker and French were parties Ev
bill, cross bill, answers, rrp!lcall1ns, and c7I
lence.
In this state Of things. upon the petition oil
Shoemaker, as president OF the Washington
and Alexandra Railroad Company, and With
the consent Of the complaiNantS. an order was
made in the case of the Adams Express Con-
pany rs. Marbury and others, dl$chareIng the
receivers appointed for The custody Of the road,
and directing them to deliver possession. nc
cording to the prayer ol the petitioner, 10 the
WASHINGTON and Alexandria Rnllroad Com
pany, without prejudice, however, tnany party
or interest in the case OF Shoemaker ".
French.
This order was clearly intended to rIac. the
road temporarily under the control OF the col
poralion represented by the new president and
officers.
1t would have been according Ia the usual
practice IN equity to require sufficient bond t.
secure the contestants OF their title against
damage, but this was matter Ct discretion with
the Judge.
On the day when tie Order was maG", the
sheriff of Alexandra county, having IN his
hand a writ OF possession irotn the Alexandra
county circuit court, previously i>usi under
the decree affirmed by the Court "i Appeals,
and recurring him to put thc Washington and
Alexandria Railroad Company in possession OF
| tho ,ooJ ,,ol, n ntIrrp nm ih, ~ # Al1rph
1870, reciting that the road had been delivered
by the receivers to Shoemaker as president, in
pursuance Ct the order OF the Circuit Count 81
the United States, and declaring the writ in
his hands executed ~ per endorsement
above"
The effect Of this return was the adoption
and recognition by the shGllif Of the act OF the
receivers under the order q this court rs hla
own act. Thus, by the concurrent action OF
the officers OF this court and the officers OF the
State court, the road was put into the posses
sion OF the corporation under the oTganiZlIlon
represented by Shocmakc..
Upon the filing OF this return ia the State
court, Nathaniel BouSh and George Ii. Robin
son, claiming to be directors ol the Washing
ton and Alexandria RaiIroad Company, ty
their %cou1scI, II. u. Ciaughton and Il. Is.
Taylor, applied to that court to scr aside this
tClulD, dDu OItlSI Il ICS Will vi lp'N'''"hi
stating at the same time the existence ni the
injunction of this court in the case OF Shoe
maker VS.. French. This order was made: the
new writ was issued, and the parties holding
under the order of this court were $ulnmarliy
turned cut Of possession. The injunction
against French was then IN lutl lOrcc and
though such m INJUNCTION Is probably lnnptra-
tive to restrain proceedings by suitors in Il
State court in q suit brought before the suit in
which the Injunction il allowed. it was entitled
to respect and ohcd!cEca by French, or any
person acting under or in concert with Inn TO
procure a supplementary order or dIrG':i!oo not
resulting necessarily from 4 decree or Judgment
in a prior suit.
And this was the character OF the proceed
ing now instituted. in form it was not 1 pro
cecding By French; but VIC mus: SMUT our eyes
10 the character Ct The whole litigation, il We
would exclude the perception OF the fact that
the whole proceeding was upon his prompt
" n,l ,rInr hi: ,fjrarfInn n substance, 1t