New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-01-31
THE ERIE LITIGATION.
A HISTORY OF A YEARS LAWSUITS.

yOnd the circle OF the cOmba'an's- 'no A""JoiS O'
one side and Fisk. Gould, Lane, and Company on the
other-actually know the condition OF matters III the
contest There doubtless is and has been. during all
this fine. well-grounded, universal opinion that
this man. cement has by fraud or chicsnery become
poasessed of the stockholders property that they
vere operating it for their private interest and that
M time in this case in all similar ones they would
be removed and the property recovered, and it may
be we'll TO exactly what has been done and what
progress has been made TO this end.
After the settlement Of what Is known ns the
litigation of 1858 the result of which was to buy on
all opposition to the nevly-eected Directors with
the funds of the Company, movement was made
tor some time TO recover the property.
THE RAMSAY SUITS BEGUN.
In November, 1862 war broke out again. AT this
ttmo the Common stock, which in August, 1868
amounted to something in excess of $S4O 0Oo had
reached the enormous figure of $40 900 and in the
now questions the public had forgotten these Illegal
Issues the hurried and disastrous sales and the sud-
den disappearance of the proceeds. The Preferred
stook, which could not be increased, had regularly
received its dividend, under the contract for it's
issue until the end of 1853 when none paid The
Common stock January 1863 sold etT2 and the Pre-
forred at "a. In November, 1860, the Common had
fallen to 29 and the Preferred TO 5li and the bonds
character credit and general standing of the Com
pauy ell followed in this downward movement
The attempts which iensueds to .obtsn redress for
these apparently grievous wrofgs, were made be-
hAn o. s,s common isd Preferred stockholders and
~ the English interest.
ON November 81, 1860, Joseph H. Ramsay, the
President Of the Albany and SusGuehanns Railroad
mon whose road Fisk had made fruitless rafu'
commenced action in the County OF delaware assnS'
the Company and certain OF the Objectionable Dlrectors
.,ttnx ont the sockhoders' grievances sndhe actions
OF the dofendants and demanding the removal OF fsh'
Gould Lane aud Others and accounting FOR tneir
r,.dods and procured orders from Judge Murray sus-
pending certain OF the Directors, appointing receiver
and ordering reference to take proof OF the fseu'
JUDGE BARNARD APPEARS
The n.,t dav bafore the papers were entirely served,
q suit was COMMANDED by the Erie Railway, and an
Injunction issued In Is by Judge Barnard eRoning
any proceeding by plaintiff his attorneys In the
Ramsay suit, or the commencement Of any similar ae-
ton and multiplying all the action OF Judge Murray. But
tho plaintiff, relying decision of tho full bench OF
the Supreme Court In which Judge Barnard concurred
shan sgt Ths Enc Railway, decided In April lscsb
vhare similar injunction issued and set aside ana
vberc the Judge delivering the opinion stated " am
OF the opinion tho order OF Judge Clarke was soso
futey void and consequently that anybody might law
fully disregard it." proceeded with his case and tho
taking OF testimony. Judge Barnard on motion now
ever continued the injunction until Judgment
In addition to Injunction stay Of proceedings was
granted and Mr.. Ransay's counsel thereupon mades
motion to vacste the ay and to continue the orders OF
Judge Murray. The plaintiff being present beside his
counsel at the time Of the motion, was summoned by
Judge Barnard to for contempt In 0sobeyins
the Injunction furdding him from this suit
In spswer he insisted his right TO conduct lawsuit
in proper and orderly manner in the courts and stated
that he was invited disregard the injunction by tho
,ooourrence of the Judge who made IL in the decision
above referred TO; hut he fined for his contempt
over 5000
An offer then made the part OF the Erie Railway
through its attorney pay all Mr. Ramsay's claims and
end the suit which declined, the plaintiff alleging
that he had commenced the suit TO bring the defendants
10 Justice and on this refusal motion was made TO
enjon the prosecution Of the action This motion was
denied.
motion was then made, and an order granted, re-
moving the cause for trial to New York and in the
mean time the injunction and other orders made ny
Judge Murray were vacated.
With the fine imposed on Mr.. Ramsay and removal
the proceedings were "effcetualy stayed"
Proceedings remained unchanged until the3Autumn OF
1870
In the Injunction suit Of the Eric Railway Company
against Ramsay all the defendants had then appesied
from Judge Barnsrds injunction order and the appeal
had heard by the full bench And MI Ramsay han
also appealed from the fine. But to this time he had
been prevented from doing act TO prepare Tor trial
In his own suit issuing any subpoena for witness
and from taking any 10 examine the books OF
the Erie Railway Company, and in this cOndlnon OF
things. the Ramsay suit was called ON at the Special
Term for trial. before Judge Barnard ON Octoher lso
The plaintiffs counsel urged these reasons not only why
they should not be compelled proceed, but Why pro-
eeedng was impossible, but the cause was ordered to
proeeed upon the 2Oth the plaintiffs counsel were al
lowed the intervening time to prepare Tor trial inc
cause was atsrwsrd adjourned TO the 2Sth OF October
In the time the fun Bench declared tho orders OF
Judge Barnard epjonng the prosecution of the Ramsay
sut ILLEGAL and vacated them On the 2bth Of October
the plaintiffs counsel repeated their objections 70 pro
ceeding to trial length and Judge Barnard ordering
the proceed they objected also to proceeding be-
fore him. and declined to proceed. he thereupon non
suited the plaintiff and adjourned the cause before him
sef for three weeks TO give the plaintiff an opporu
pity OF then moving TO open the default and to fix the
amount tho allowance 10 be gwen TO the defendants
counsel The plaintiff not nppreeatins this opportunity
offered him. thereupOn moved, before Judge Brady, 70
yscate Of Judge Barnard nonsuitng him and
adournn the case which motion heard and granted
and the cause again placed the Special Term Cal
epdar for trial This OF the Court should be held
by Judge Brady In December, and Judges lngrahsmi
Sutherland. and Brady in the following months.
An appeal was taken TO the General Term from the
order of Judge Brady setting aside Judge Barnard's
order which appeal up for argument In January,
1871 before Judges Inrsham Csrdozo and Barnard The
appeal was taken under adysement, when Judges Bar
pard and CardOzo Judge Igraham dissenting) ordered
TINT all proceedings the suit should be stayed until
the appeal has determined and again the Ramsay
suit senced.
The full bench having said, knocked the brains
out of the suit OF the Erie Railway sg Ramsay, by the
decision that the injunction could not be sustained that
suit also had been called up before Judge Barnard the
oase tried and the trial ended with failure TO obtain
Judgment. The full bench also reduced Mr. Ramsay's
pe 10 $780, from which he again appealed to the Court OF
Appeals.
such is the history and position Of the Ramsay suit
A.. mt Hai Ia