, 1870-11-05
ERIE Law,

AhA4 La W.
Governor HOFFMAN,. Nupremc Cour&
~u-sntiss Judge BARNARD su Il a,e
c1>ton Ut importance to Eri.,--
Another Decision ct x.e>. Value
ftevefacn-F1c tsrder Finding Ram
kny aor Contempt.
From III: ytse To.i Times, .yos. $.
The tinsulsrly complicated Irrigation in
which DAVID ". Esn1>sy il platutif1, and tho
Erie Hallway Company defendant, Vas again
Ut 10. argument and Adjudication il the
General Term Of the supreme Court yester-
dag. It will be remembered that the suit
proper was decided come days since III the
SUI rene Court, Special Term. before Ju1ga
DaTptrd. ~ Judgment entered by default
in favor Of the defendants, tta platu.
til refutlnc to 50 to trial before the cour1 -
tten constituted: Tie fasss Of tia litigation
bsye oes fom time to time p1tlLaleu very
fulls il the columns Of tue 1i,aes, but in
order that the reader may understand the
fcFcc ard su1l effect Of the present decisions
Of tie Ge.eraf Term. i- beromas neces.1v %
give b1Nf atenent Of ths commencement
of the acsiu1l, and som. Of the loaY series Of
proceedings which followed. The suit was
originally commenced bE Mr. Ramsay. as Que
Of Tho ssocAholaer. Of the E1ie Railway
Com} aEy. to Tir up tho adu1ini4trs..
ton Of II: present officers Of tha
company, Fisk / Co. ~hnm he charged
Will uIlearpipp1;AiinS large susus ct the fuu1s
Of the csu1sny. So n after the coumenca-
nei't Of thlh ac':sn, Judge Barnard, Oh mo-
junction against the plaintiff, Ramsay, re-
rtraialug bin from taking. apy steps tozArl
prosecuting l.is ac,ion, and from commenc-
il 6, OF permitting 10 b. commenced. any ei:n-
i1.r ctIon aRa,net the Erie Railway Comoauy
N"t"ith.'*nl,ug hi. injunction, the plaintiff
did. hy The advice OF Ills counsel. take steps
10 rIei'a:e for trial aud bring tho cause
was a5juaged By Jc1ga Barnard to
bt guilts OF contempt OF court, and ordered
to ~ 6ue Ct 55, ,0G0, that teiug the amount
found by referee that the defendants ~ere
damaged By the dlsobedi:oce of tho injucc-
IT, br Ramsay. Aeout the sams time al
motion Of counsel for the Eric E:ilsay Can
pspy, romozine the trial Of the cause f1on
Delaware County, in which it waa originally
hsnught By Is NaInsay, to the city Of New
York. Noiions wezs maae IN due form By
isan.ay's council befcre Juig4 E1rnarl. to
vaeste The Injunction :. stsainirg s1r. Ram
tay trum the prosecution Of his Sc
tson, and also to yacate tie order. of
.Jndeo B,ac:m removing the tsil or
/. he c.ust fron1 Ee'a*a1e County to New York.
Il Hh these notlurs we're denied by Judge
R-> 'nasd, who made All ogll-r denying tho mo-
thu to vacate tue injunction and perretust-
i-T it, and slso an order refusing to vaca. tho
nrd - Of Judge Ea!com changing tho pla ID Of
tr1al. From, theee two last oralers Of Judge
Dar,ra I'd all appeal vas taken to the General
Tssus- together With IN appeal from the orier
Ill p0=i ug On Ran,sar = tine Of q. .000 70. oon-
t-ntt u coult. The apreais in tho tso
former motions we're argued ut tho last term of
tho eoEEs, ami have now been ds:idel. TGe
appeal from the crde1 deu5ing \ motion to
vseato tin, Judgment against III. RAMSAY, en-
1oiL:1 z cita fiHnl fEe prosccut,un Of his ac-
tion, AID y,ertetuatiux tho Injunction in force,
la tex Il decided III f4~or Of Mr. RaEesay. aud
acaiust che COMPANY, thus reversing tie de-
c;r:cE Of 1udc- Eatnar', the law in su.!.
caser. as STATED it tho opinion Of Judge Car
dozo CT, bebalf Of the court, t>,iue well set
tied The appeal ftcm the order removing
tho 111ce Of trial lsta been decided il favor nf
E,ie and aeaiDrt .zr. Ransrv, the Judgment
OF tue coart confirming She order OF Judge
Barnard. III the opinion d the court on salls
alIcal, rendered by :futso 1ngraI,an 4e IL sc.
The molten On the pa17 OF the defendants to
sscatc t!,e Nay Ut proceedings made ut Delhi,
Oh tw else huurs notice afser srryinE pxpera
at Albany. or that TIE stav Of proceedings
served st or about To- o'clock q. u,.. OF tic
:Iet Ct M:x to prevent the making OF tho
and orderly proceeeir g. consistent with due
adnlhbti ation of jststica. and il wo bad the
power Gu this appeal, both should bs ret as.,,
aid the parties tem1'teI to the hearing Of
their original motion. I'm. shst cannot he done,
aud the city question that can be raised GU this
a}pe4l is whether the defendants wero ir-
liz Place Of .riai at D:nelarntan vi,hoat
knowledge OF the connsel attending 10 thst
motion Of any s,ay OF proceedings. although
the eanae hsl III tl12t time bcen served in
Ncw 1olk. think the proceeding Was not
Irregular. To give tic orier staying pgoceoi1-
!. s. ut ,lit5. II should have been served in
inc tn be coH mupicated to the coun-e1 act
irg 1t the cou:t when the uaot1on was mads
The couid not be done as appears By the ai1i-
liavits on the pzrt OF the plaintiff and the Or
der war rent to New York. aud even there was
not sttsea mill Al out the hour Of making the
motion at Diu.hamtou- Tile a!lilasIss on the
Part OF the plaintiff sl1ov that it was inlpoe-
s1blo to get up tile necessary papers between
the serrice Ut The order to show caslsa. and
the departure Of the train for DiuKhamtou,
TO orIuse the mo:inu, hut they do not show
that they could not lnve Roat there in tine to
ark for m aaioutnment. IN order to obtain
time to prepare such papers, and there is uo
reason to sn1reee s1lch time would not have
teen grated. It seems to me, however, that
The facts attore referred to shoull havc becr,
ftll RI tGtisnt to have allowed a 7rheasing Of
the mo:ion on the merits, but the appeal from
tba! part Of the order appealed from lisving
tctn waived BY the appellant, We cauno. zus-
tain tho appea1 for that cause."
The APPS ii frum the or1er declaring Mr.
namsay in contempt and imposing fuo OF
5000. WAS argusu before tho General Torn
Yesterday. Counsel for the complainant. Mr.
RaEsar, rontended that such an o11tr WAS
t.ullisE. mere piece Of waste paper, shown
and p.1etaiued to be such by tho leceion OF
Judge Cafdozo aud others Of the Supreme
Court Bench In former cases, ~ we'll a. By the
decision of the Supreme Court, General Term,
1nst rendered in tho san,a Gaze. reversing the
order of Judge Barnard pe.petu.ting the in
Junction, Ann for the violation OF which Mr.
HamkaY is aajndgea to he N contempt.
Counsel on bthalf Of the railway company
conteuded that whether the or!er continuing
the injunction was illegal or not. or cou.u OF
could not be pustained on appeal, was not the
gt1cetion before the coart. The question WA.
was the order Of Injunction in existence. and
did Rataesy. knowing th.t fact, violate it
1t appeared that, nor only WAS it in existencs,
!;u, that Ramsay. hy the hlvice OF his coun-
-el. had boldly, E1grant}r, and .le:ian.1y vto.
lated it. Whatever might have heeu the va
IiG;ty Of the or1er, tho proper conrss for
nsn.ssy mas to move 10 n I}tfy or vacate il, !,
snd not IL deliberately override its authority.
The CoA1t reserved its decis1ou IN tho ap-
neal, ht,t continuing stay hr1inst the en-
fozc+ men. ef the aus against 3Ir. Ramsay I'M
I'll fipal decision.
Eufns ". reckhAm and Charles Tracy sp-
,ue1sc4l on trl..tf Of Dir. Ramsay: 1',.hlcr
Eie!u aud David Dudley Field appearing fur
The Eric Hallway Company.