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

Decision In the Erie-yanderbiIt LItigation-De.
feat of Brio-J.dse 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, 600, which has
teen 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 a share, receiving
for 1t 80 500 600 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, it 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 m oton 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 its conclusion
Judge Barnard announced his decision, 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 are in the complaint which the right OF the
painti to against the defendant 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
tanned possession OF the bonds stock, and money
conToi over the board Of I directors OF s"ms
of the officers or the Erie Railway Com
Of some OF the then officers of the company to
effect this ,ns m is asgsS iSrner In the
the agreement as therein set forth, and power
| enter irto this compromise at all with Work, schel,
and with the defendant; that was Ia fraud OF the
| stockholders OF the company-the making OF such
settlement and that two Of the directors, Gould
| CATION OF fraud, am entirely unable to nnd any,
not even the slightest evidence because it appears
from the testimony that at that time the present
| planti1s were engaged In a series OF expensive,
| long and pIotracted litigations.
| There can be no question in regard to the Erie
| RalW ay Company having the power to retire their
own stock, and to buy their own bonds or their own
They are specay Excepted by the tSra section &c % so Of
| the General Railroad act from that provision that
prevents railroad companies from buying or retiring
| their own stock. The very fact that TWO of the
| directors-Fisk and Gould-voted the negative
against the settlement would have no material
weight that know Of-nO more weight than Ii eight
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 on the part OF the defendant
| of any OF his Understanding but what he had
legitimate and proper right do as far as the set
| tlement was concerned The officers of the CON-
pany had a right to settle these litigatons IL was
their duty to do so. 1t a good settlement, and
| 1t was one that would benefit and has beGe-
| hted, and / presume will benefit, the stock
| holders. The plaintihs at the time this
| writ was brought were governed and con-
trolled by new set Of Officers, who thought that in
| the performance of their duly they should make
effort to recover for the benefit OF the stockholders,
| this large sum OF money they deemed improper rlv
! extracted from Their hands, They com mnenced this
| suit In good faith, and don't think it would be
| proper TO punish them any more by ining them with
costs, because It seems to have been a mistake-an
| honest mstake-on the part OF the plaintffs when
| they commenced it. The complaint Is therefore
| dismissed without costs.-M 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 Deeem-
| Der, 1860. Immediately thereupon contro-
| yersy 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 S34 500 The
contractor in 1851 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 nth inst, when the master, Jonathan
| Dixon, Jr, to whom 1t had been referred, TO
state an account between the parties, reported
| a balance due from the Erie Railway Company
! to the contractor of $50, GIG 53.-N. Y. Times.