The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-07-02
SUPREME CoUaT-c iAMs:as.
The Rivni Raiironds at War-Erie Wants
Three Millions and nm INJUNCTION.


Three Millions and nm Iniuncii On.
Before Judge Barnard.
Inc Erie Ra5'cdy Company as. me Lake Shore
ana Michigan southern Railroad Compd)ay ana the
Neo York CepTGi ana Hudson Riuer Railroad
COmpanv.--fester1ay morning. at ten O'Clock the
argum nj in TIL, case resumed. and the court
room gas crowded with lawyers, anxious 70 hear
the arguments Of the distinguished counsel who
engaged IN conc cling II.
IL was commenced by senator Dooli,tle who, on
behalf oil 0e!endants stated That they wanted
was postponemeli OF the hearing on the motion
FOR injunction. THIS he considered was their
right, without having any conditions imposes upon
them whether the facts OF the the practice
OF the court warranted reference, while 10 grant
an Injunction on an alleged breach Of contract
would be an injustice both to the defendants and TO
he whole community, FOR Il would Involve consider
able Inconvenience TO the travelling public and 10
the carriage OF freight from the West TO the East,
ami rice regS0
Judge Barnard here asked II he was 30 understand
counsel TO say that the defendants would accept
postponement II any Conditions were inposed ~
| an accompaniment
reference and an interlocutor Injunction we Will not
| accept q Dostponcmeut
Upon this Mr. sherman. VINO has unaided fought
against the united strength OF our counsei Tor defend
ands said that such being tue position taken ty the
| defendants he wold conine hiuseii TO the simple
question OF postponcnlent Tue Curt. ne lelt GER
J tain wouli not postpone the proceedings without
certain necessary cOnbitiDns. rne defendants
| ing admired the existence OF contract IN in de
nia of violation OF auy OF Its clauses was, Tor the
purposes OF the present motion. perfectly ,ninae-
rial and therefore no postponement was necessary,
the mater TO be decided beng merely question OF
! law.
Mr.. Beach replied that fact ADD law had been
much confused " was Impossible to con hue the
| gumenl without gong into the particulars OF the
case. The defendants with thS lim.ted time az their
| disposal mad procured six ailidayitS rom men who
| had been Intimately acquainted with the working Of
, the railroad OF the plaintiff AID oil The de eldanis.
!
breach OF contract nor was there any cau-e OF com
! plant Counsel Tor pIanuu had saiI these am
davis helped ms cause. lie tMr. Beacb) would very
| mucn like 10 know how.
MIR shearinan stated that in these afdavits IL was
admitted that they issued through tckes and rent
IRE ght through without change ui cars; also they
saIi that the most direct ronie was chosen Tor M.
consigned freight. Unless IL was snec tr8ly stated,
1 he iMr. Sheafman would not consider II was the
! Erie Railway that was chosen.
20 this Mr.. Beach repi that the am law o. SAID
that the Erie road got the Target snare OF the reght
ahd that in the months OF February ah March they
admitted they dla Issue ihiSiisi ttses ana sent
ifeighs thr0upl. aud they would continue 10 DO 40.
III, ,Onor had said that he could nos ncrfere with
this system. IL would be putting stop 10 the mar
of progress aDg would Involve the ntr5d c.ion OF
old ileas long Since thrown aside. Ihe Erie road
was antedIiuvian and was not equal TO the task OF
Keeping up with the times. II was well estab i>hed
| rule never TO gram an injunction where there was
any doubt TO It's efficacy, ana IN the present case
| 10 grant an Injunction won be moBs,rous ana
would create almost national calamity.
At this point some reference WAS made. 10 an OLD
| Injunction and snit which had been ABANDONED, ana
| a slight discussion arose.
Judge Barnard, however. said that "a he under.
stood the ieendants To say they wou a not accept
an adjournment. coupled with any confli ions, al he
could do was to order the motion 10 be argued
Mir Beach replied hat n was the duty Of the Courr
10 impose conditions II II saw Gt. WHAT they wished
TO avoid was not 20 be placed in he position OF ac-
cepting reference and an IN JUNCTION, which they
considered Improper and not warranted ON motion
FOR pos lpOnement.
Mr. shearman objected. SAYING that If 1t were so
arranged the defendants might OBTAIN stay OF
| proceedings on an app al. AMI by tn.s means
the paintln would have no benent from The in)unc-
ton.
STR. Beach disclamed any snch intention on his
! own part on that Of his colleagues.
| Judge Barnard remarked tdat II would be best 10
| take postpOnement, Win a reieren e.
Mr., Shcalman sli he would now move for an or
der OF injunction along with the ef renee, and after
some objections on the part III defendant; h Was al
} lowed to proceed. he said that the contract was
| made was not disputed but II was said that IL was
| contrary 10 law and o public policy, The coDtraW
was IN TACT ia exact accordance with the spirit Of
| the law OF 1sI7 providing ior equal convenience,
and necessarily FOR tho sake Of equality, Tor in
convenience. The contract mn be judged by tho
| public policy or the time m which u Wa ma le
They were not asking that m ough should be
discontinued, that women and children should DO
turned out at dead OF night. They were asking that
tickets should be SOLD equally Tor DO h roads tlIat
handbls such az he had here should not be circu-
lated by The Lake shore rad.
Mr.. Lannng sad that this was not one oi their cir
! culars.
Mr.. Sherman said it was got from one Of their
officers All ibey asked was common fairness.
They had invoked the rule that where the equities
% q complaint were deniedI The IN JUNCTION must
lall inat rue ony fclacu iolucdai- IN hHsWers; u
only related 20 inJunctions on proceedings al law.
not 10 inlunctions against waste and lrreparable
damage.
The only real question whether injuno
ton was proper whether they should be left TO
their remedy for damages. 40 Lico tceaienf, the
courts had uniformly awarded specific performance
OF these contracts Is II was iL,posslye 20 ascertain
the amount OF freight ana passengers diverted by
such course OF action and impossible TO estl-
mate the profits which would nave been received
! on such franc II not Jivertei He should not follow
The counsel into al the branches OF the Injunction
/ NhlCh was asked ID the action
They Gid not now ask against the Lake Shore
road an ything which would in any way inconve-
nenco the public. They now merely asked thai
they be treated with the nrmn ass and justice called
for by the contract Tor which the plaintiffs had paid
| so large price.
Judge Barnard said hereafter Il would have 10 Do
| very grave case In which be would enjon ran.
! road.
The CourI took the papers, reserying opinion.