New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-01-31


Bank commenced suit in the United States Court for
his dividend for 1858 but after the gold the
Erie managers purchased the bank. and Mr.. Could as
stopford stated sent for him and requested him to give
him the control OF the suit, and, such ntmaon. he
forthwith discontinued 1t.
In April 1869, one John Is, Peck commenced a suit in
tho York Supreme Court against tho Company for
dividend In 1862 and upon the Goth Of April 1862 Jay
Gould put In q answer stating that after making
payments mortgages and leases made and Liabilities
incurred since tho issue OF the Preferred stock there was
nothing left to pay suoh dividend and tho question
coming before Judge Ingraham this Judgment
was ordered for the plaintiff, May 10. 1869.
James Thompson commenced similar suit In the Bill
preme Court. and suit afterwsrd commenced SIM
liar to the stopford suit. by Thomas st. John. In the
United States Circuit Court.
THE THOMPSON SUITS.
Upon May IT. 1869. Jay Gould and FREDERICK A. Law,
following the Rasay tactics. commenced suit against
the Erie Railway Peck and others, Preferred and Com
stockholders, and obtained injunction restrain
ing the Eric Railway from declaring or paying any divl
dend the Preferred stock, and he defendants ana oH
sioekholders from H60atinc tie question Of ne PreeTTed
siock and from doing anything which might tend to IN
pode hadcr any Director servant IN NE discharge
ofhis duty Thompson did not obey this injunction and'
following the Ramsay tactics again, motion was mace
to punish him for contempt but 1t was abandoned Inc
injunction remained until January, 1870 when 1t was
ward characterized by another Judge as fooWs Ihn'
injraetion order Fraud upon t4s a.55 10 had
neither principle prfcsdahito sustain IT," The Erie
Company then after delay Of almost eight months an
swer IA the suit Thompson and the case was set
Tor trial for January H. 1870 at Saratoga On JAN h ioo
Judge Barnard in New-York, made an order setting
aside the notice trial This order was itso set aside
where the action was triabie ana, atnough MI "oui
swears TO loss Of 900 in 1885, the piainD wds pad
|,sHd friTe end nm
and the litigation hushed.
Tn the Peek sui decided the demurrer against the
Company In May 1852 land the prosecution OF which
was enjoined until Jan H. 1870 now answer was put In
on Fab o. 1870 and rapid the proceedings that
upon the 2eth Of March 1870 the had been entirely
tried before referee and decided In opposition to
Judge Ingrahsm rungs and wholly in the interest OF
the Erie Company, concerning which decision Judge
in published opinion recently remarked: The subse-
quent proceedings In that suit satisfy that such pro
ceedings. after the decision OF Justice Ingraha arc
cousivo and fraudulent and for the benefit OF the Com
pany" That suit just been heard on appeal at tho
General Ter before Judges Barnard and Cardozo the
decision Is not yet given.
Tho suit of st. John In the o. g. Circuit Court has not
yet been heard.
In March, 1870. James Thompson, having been paid his
dividend for 1863 above shown brought new suit FOR
his dividend In 1861 In this suit the time Of tho defend
(which answer Was duo In April, l87O by
Sept 1870 The set UP various things and was
sworn 70 by Mr. Gould Among others, 1t alleged that
the presence OF the holders Of the Common stock was
necessary IN the suit 10 determine the rights OF tho Pre-
srrred stockholders But, the Company had by vote.
Nov a. 1862 declared scrip dividend OF seven per
sen payable IN Eve years. the Court ordered the answer
70 be stricken out ard judgment entered for the plaintiff
declaring that the Company had authority 20 ex-
cent from earnings cash, and that the Executive
Committee had investigated and declared dividend,
there necessarily must be net earnings Mr. Gould was
allowed no opportunity to prolong this contest by the
favorite proceeding Prom this decision the defendants
have appealed, and obtained the usual stay OF pro
oeedings Certain other Preferred suits sTeaso pend
ing
Tho situation OF the Preferred stoekholder then. Is
thin: No dividend has been paid snco the dividend for
1867. When the Company paid Thompson, in January,
1870 dividend for 1885, either the funds OF the Com
pany were diverted, to remove that litigation OF the
amount Of the earnings stated by Mr. Gould is untrue
And In 1869 the Court has declared the preferred stock
entitled 10 dividend.
The Preferred stockholders havo been fortunate
in their tgations than the others, and the rural dis
trfcs have caused tho Company 10 pay The Peck suit
In NewYork however, averse to this view but has
been pronounced fraudulent suit 1t seems, whatever
may be the result to 1868, which probably Will DO se
tied in some OF the pending sus, that the Preferred
stockholders are now entitled to dividend in cash for
1869 not to speak Of These whole dividends would
amount to over million and half Of dollars, OF which
5000 has been paid
THE ENGLISH SUITS.
The foreign stockholders have still more eventfu and
unfortunate story.
In 1862 IL was estimated that O0Omore than half
the entire capital of the Erie Ralwaywas held in Great
Britain OF this very large amount although bought
and paid for, was still only transferred by blank
power attached to the share itself, while the stock
might be standing in the Of any one and In fact
large amounts standing IN the names OF Smith,
Gould Martin, and others. This stock for certain pur
poses az voting was transferred the stock Of
sons In whose names II stood.
Mr. Burt solicitor Of standing and character, was
sent here TO attempt TO redress the wrongs inflicted on
the English holders. He had certain ineectuai inter
yiavs with Could made Intellectual appeal to the
Legislature to repeal the Eric h and finally he too
determined TO suit In the Federal Courts "
bring Fisk Gould and Company to Justice"
bill was thereupon prepared In the Circuit Court In
favor of Heath Co.. Raphael Co.. and others, alleging
the various wrongs Of the stockholders somewhat In tho
form of the Ramsay BILL and was fled IN the Spring OF
1870 Prior the fling OF this b as large portion OF
the stock standing in the names ofthe parties not the
actual owners 1t resolved by the English holders
carving on this suit as measure OF protection, to
transfer their stock to Robert A Heath and Henry L.
Raphael of London This transfer requested Of tho
officers Of the Company and refused and the trans
fer books forthwith closed
Soon after, Nyce, lawyer from an obscure Penn
syvana town, appeared, and began an action in the
Supreme Court, alleging a conspiracy, and the usual
charges that oreshadow inuctions receivers and OBJ
tanned injunction from Judge Barnard, against the
Company and Others fOrbiddng any transfer OF this
stock and enioinng the Company from opening The rdns
fer books at ALL motion then made before Judge
Cardozo vacate the injunction, but that notion al
though heard many months ago. hanover been decided
new motion sfterward made before Judge Brady,
and although it strenuousy urged that the matter
was already before Judge CardOzo, it heard, and
Judge Brady dissolved the injunction.
HOW THR EN0IIsH STOCK WAS COSFIsCATED.