The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-03-29
VANDERBILT VICTORIOUS.

Decision In the Erie-Vanderbllt LItiGatlOn-pe.
feat of Erie-Jadse Barnard Dismisses the
Complaint
In the action in which the Erie Railway Com
pany are plaintiffs and Cornelius Vanderbilt de-
fendant, to recover about $4, 600, ,000 which has
been pending in the courts for about two years,
Judge Barnard yesterday rendered judgment for
the defendant. The amount in litigation was
alleged to have been paid to Commodore Wander
bilt in July, 1868, upon the settlement of the
Erie litigations then pending. One million dol
lars was paid to the Commodore as bonus for
getting the suits against the Erie Company
discontinued, and for the resembling of the con-
tract, by which Commodore Vanderbilt CON-
PEELED the company to purchase fifty thousand
shares of Erie stock at SO o share. receiving
for it 90 500 600 in cash and 81 125 600 worth of
bonds of the Boston, Hartford, and Erie Rail-
way Company. After the trial of the suit was
about half finished before Judge Barnard in
1869, 1t was postponed on account OF Mr. Field
beng obliged to attend to another cause in
Rochester.
Several arguments have been had in the case,
and several months ago 1t was adjourned, at the
request of the defendants counsel, to make
their proofs. Judge Barnard had previously de-
MED IN otion for non suit, holding that the evil
dence of the plaintiffs constituted cause of
action.
The argument yesterday was heard in the
room of the Supervisors. AT It's conclusion
Judge Barnard announced his decision, as fol-
lows:-
After having examined very carefully the COM
plant, and the answer and the testimony, have
come to the conclusion, looking at the allegations
that in the complaint on which the right OF the
plaint to against the defend Ant Is claimed
find that 1t is charged that the defendant obtained
stock, bonds. aud money, amounting to some mil
charged therein. Another allegation that ne OBJ
tained possession OF the bonds stock, and money by
Se Se boa of r
| of the officers or the Erie Railway Com
p Some a'V Or the then officers of the Company to
effect this ,n IL is & &aegsS In the
the agreement as therein set FORTH and power to
| enter irto this compromise at all with Work, schel
and with the defendant; that In fraud OF the
stockholders of the company-the making Of such a
| settlement-and that two OF the directors, Gould
and Fisk, opposed It, Now, with regard to the ale
| CATION OF fraud, am entirely unable to dnd any,
not even the slightest evidence because 1t appears
| plaintiffs were engaged In a series of expensive
| long, and pIotracted litigations.
There can be no question in regard to the Erie
RailN ay Company having the power to retire their
own stock, and to buy their own bonds or their own
| property whenever they have the money to do so.
They are specially excepted by the third section OF
the General Railroad act from that provision that
prevents railroad companies from buying retiring
| directors-Fisk aud Goud-voted in the negative
| against the settlement would have no material
weight that know of-no more weight than II eight
| out OF seventeen voted the same as those
| two men. There Was no law to prevent
looking at 1t in that light have come to the conclu-
sion that this action cannon be maintained. There
is no fraud proved the part OF the defendant or
| of any OF his Understanding but what he had a
legitimate and proper right TO do, far the set
| tlement was concerned. The officers OF the COM
pany had right to settle these liigations. It
their duty to do 80. 1t was good settlement and
| 1t was one that would benefit and has beGe-
| flied, and / presume will benefit, the stock
holders. The paintiffs at the time this
| writ brought were governed and con-
troled by set OF officers, who thought that in
the performance OF their duty they should make an
effort to recover for the benefit OF the stockholders,
| this large sum OF money they deemed imprope rly
| extracted from their hands. They commenced this
| suit In good faith. and don't think it would be
proper TO punish them any more by fning them with
COSTS because 1t seems to have been mistake-an
honest mistake-on the part OF the plaintiffs when
| they commenced it. The complaint Is therefore
| dismissed without costs.-N. y. World.
| Another Heavy Judgment Against Erie.
1t is not generally known that the Bergen
| Tunnel, so important to the Erie Road, has
| never been fully paid for 1t was finished by
the contractor, Mr.. A. B. Seymour, in Decem-
| Der, 1860. Immediately thereupon a contro-
versy arose between him and the Long Dock
Company, otherwise Erie, about his pay.
| The contractor claimed that there was a large
balance due him, while the company insisted
that they had overpaid him about $34 500 The
contractor, in 1861, filed his bill for relief In the
Court of Chancery of New Jersey, aud the suit
has been dragging its slow length along" until
the 18th inst, when the master, Jonathan
Dixon Jr., TO whom il had been referred, 10
state an account between the parties, reported
a balance due from the Erie Railway Company
to the contractor of $50, GIG 5S-N. Y. Times.