The New York herald., 1870-03-29
THE RAILROAD TITANS.
The Erie War Resumsd-Argumsnt ON the No
ton to Nen-suit Denisd-vanderbiit Over
hauled-Further Adjournment.

Pursuant to adlournmens the hearing OF the case
Of the Erie Railway against Cornelius Vanderbilt
was resumed yesterday In the Supreme Court,
Special Term. Judge Barnard presiding Is will be
remembered that on Thursday week motion was
made to dismiss the complaint Tbs motion was
now resisted by Mr. Field on behalf OF tbs plaintiff.
He c0Dtended that the directors were not Identical
with the corporation. that they were merely It's
general agents. ana that ths corporation may repu-
dlate their acts and their contracts In pro-
csey the same cases IN which
ANRacHANT MAY REPuDIATE
the acts OF his managing clerk. 1t was equally well
settled that directors stood position OF trust OF
which all the world has notice, ana that no who
enters into contract with them, which he knows TO
be made ON their part In VOCATION OF their
trust, can enforce such a contract against
the corporation, or retain any money or
other property conveyed TO him by such persons
in breach OF trust. Counsel also claimed that the
,deiandant asked and received $500. 900 IN cash
ana 81 250,0o0 IN bonds, from the treasury OF the
Erie Railway COMPANY, as consideration for allow
lug that company to be defauded by
It's directors ana for Withdrawing suits winch IN
their nature could only be beneficial TO the conf
persons with whom he mdae the negotiation and
whose influence carried II through.
EVERY ELgAENT or FRAUD
was there presenl-damage 10 the corporation, bene-
NJ to the trustees who controlled II and per-
tect knowledge or the facts the part
OF Mr. Vanderbilt. Counsel then proceeded
TO comment on the testimony or Messrs. FISK and
could, showing from 1t that Mr.. Vanderbilt who IN
hls testimony nao taifed Of q sale 10 Drew and 10
Mr. Drew who mad Ia ked OF u as sale to Goula and
Eiurldpe, hao AZ the time OF this conspiracy
urged flsK and Gould to get the money
nom the Erie Railway COMPANY. He com
mented on the Iauaatory nature Of MT Beachs ar
gument to MI Vanderbilt. He denied that his clarac
ter was unsuilied THIS was not the tlrst corpora
ton over which ne had stretched his hand 10 wiring
from IT. money He was rich. lie had money but
from Ii. A monument did exist in ST. Joan's PARK
not erected with his money, but under wricn might
well bo written 10 the gfeat-he would not say
rObbur-0ut TO
THE GREAT APPRoPRIAroR
OF others money" In ms SUI ne appeared as
man VINO had stirred up suits through Scheii, Work
aud others 10 extract nearly Ave millions from this
company.
After scme further argument Judge Barnard de-
MED the motion. In reply 70 ex-Judge Davis. Judge
barnard SAID he had right 10 reDy.
MIR. Beach for the defendant sad that they were
taken somewhat Dy surprise by tns IA her prema-
lure announcement; they would nave nov TO acqll-
esce III II, but thev desired To know something of
The grounds which MS Honor sustained TIE co,li-
plant; whether ne CONSIDERED tiat there were In
decided as W one OF both OF them, hat They should
be retained.
Nj. Justice Barnard SAID he should content hlm
self With saying that ON EXAMINATION OF the COM
pialnE though ne was not siio THAI there wa3 law
enough to MAINTAIN 1t Tor S35uU,0J0 ne thouant the
proofs wltn regard " the million warranted HIM in
retaining the suii.
Mr.. Beach thereupon moved that the Court dismiss
the cause OF action as 10 the million, on The GROUND
that jury was the proper tribunal.
The Court denied the motlon.
Mr.. Beach then asked Tor an Adjournment, which
was granted. ana the case was pnsoncu 10 April 70.