New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-03-08
FACTS For MIR. FIELD.
TIE FULL STORY OF ERIE LITIGATION
No. IT,

So, and snsouohanna Railroad Company ana MI H. -
reds connection herewith. Tho following Il the story
o, what are called the Ramsoy-Er ana Erie-iansey
Obligations:
che supree Court Qgyng the venue in Delaware County,
against the Eric Railway Company, Fisk, Could Lane,
and others 10 procure the removal OF eight Of the II
Directors OF The road dncuding Flax, Gould, and @nel
for maeasanco in ofice aud the dishonest appropra-
ton Of the funds Of the corporation This equity
suit, in Court having the fullest equity powers On
November o. Judge Murray made order suspendng
from office until tho final hearing, the eight Directors
named as defendants, ana euioining them from acting
a. such This left nine of the Oldest ana most eN-
pcrcnced Directors-bclng majority OF the Board-n-
suspended In the event Of their refusing to act, ana IN
that event only Mr.. Groesbeck appointed Receiver
Before these orders coud be served Fisk Gould, Lane
aud most Of tho Directors sought TO DO suspended,
Mcssrs. Field & Sherman, appearing for these defend
ants. OF them, obtained from Judge Baieom an
order staying Ramsey from serving the order OF sus-
pension aud the orders Of injunction, until motion to
Nacatc them could be heard
80 far no complaint need be made. But, not content
with this, Field Shearman began suit in the County
Of New-York in the name Of the Erie Railway Company
against Ramsey Eaton and Tailor RomseyS atorheysb
Rune and Gyoesbeck 1t is this suit nd the use made Of
80 20 hinder and delay the suit OF Ramsey, which is
claimed have been corrupt OF Che process OF the
Court other words. this action brought without
shadow OF right justice for the purpose OF giving
Judge Barnard hold on Ramseys suit The substance
Of the complaint in Erie agt. Ramsey was as follows;
FIRST: That Fisk Gould, Lane and Abram Gould al
suspended Dircctors were four out the ye members
OF the Executive Committee Of the Ere Railroad 10
whom the management Of the ordinary business OF the
road was committed and that Gould was President and
Treasurer six Vice President and Controller and Lane
Counsel. That their pension from office and the ap-
pointment Of Receiver would bring the business OF the
Corporation TO a stand sim dniure its credit andeause
L. Dc e Z. frtff
second: That Ramsey, actuated by motives personal
revenge had bought his stock and bonds for the purpose
of bringing his action.
Third: That Ramsey and Eaton had coluvcy procured
Eunke 70 appear the attorney the Erie Railroad IN
The Delaware County suit and that by of Runke,
cousivey given Groesbeck been appointed Receiver
In explanation Of the third allegation, itmust be stated
that Mr.. Eaton having understood Gen. Owen, one of
the Erie Directors, to authorize the appearance OF
Mr. Runkle for the road had asked him to appear But
his appearance, viii hereafter appear, withdrawn
within IS hours, and before anything had been done
under it.
Upon these three ALLEGATIONS, Judge Barnard made
eypar,e on November Is, the following order:
That Ramsey be er,oined from proceeding further in
aud from beginning any other suit TO call Fisk, Gould,
&C. account for their misconduct and from obtaining
could Re. or restraining them from acting Direct
and officers Of said Company or for the appointment
OF a Receiver.
That the Directors Of the railroad recognize Fisk
Gould, &C., Directors and obey such drec-
tons as they might give members Of the Executive
Committee Notwithstanding Judge Murray's orders.
That Runke refrain from appearing or acting atOr
ney Tor the railroad.
This order contained provision requiring the DEFEND
ants 10 show before Judge Barnard al the Special
Eerp Room, November 80, why the injunction should
not be continued until Judgment The proper place to
apply for iDunctous to vacate or continue them Is
at chambers. Judge InEraham assigned to hold
this branch the Court in November 1869, and
Guay sitting in Chambers from Nov "a TO Dec l. Judge
Barnard therefore, must have been especially called on
and selected from all the other Judges grant this in
Sunction And instead Of leaving Ramsey to make his
EMOTION TO vacae at Chambers, he is required to show
cause Special Room, before Judge Barnard,
why it should be continued. Why not leave him to
make the motion at Chambers before whatever Judge
Syas theref
But to proceed The motion to continue the Injunction
.va heard on 80 Mr. Field arguing it the part Of
1sk and Gould Before the hearing, and Nov. &c,
Cen Owens claiming that Mr.. Eaton had misunderstood
him about Rnnke's appearance, this appearance was
withdrawn, and Field & Sherman recognized as
attorneys for the road Runkle appearance had lasted
lees than hours and steps had been taken by him
Sn the suit This ground for the injunction there
FORE at an end Only the alleged personal motives Of
Ramsey and the temporary inconvenience to the road
FROM the removal of its executive officers, remained as
ground for this extraordinary proceeding. All this ap
peared and urged the hearing. Mr. Field, never
theess strenuOusy insisted upon the Djuncton being
continued. Judge Barnard held the matter under ad
ylsement until April - 1870 An appeal was sure TO dis
Bolye Injunction, but appeal could be taken until
she motion was decided So the delay Of four months
Tnd p days in deciding the motion kept Ramsey tied
Nthout the possibility Of relief Another motion TO
r,acae the Injunction being made before Judge Brady
Judge Barnard length made his decision ION April r.
pO and decided that the injunction must be continued
Untl judgment He wrote opinion on this decision.
Tho effect Of this injunction was TO bring Ramseyto
ffo i'm ID a
dis attempts the Erie Managers to account. For
AZ must be noticed that the injunction did not merely stay
the operation Judge Murrays orders Of suspension.
1T enjoned all proceedings in Ramseys suit including
even the service OF the summons and complaint The
Judges IN the Sixth District had not and would not grant
any such stay that and this the why suit
had 70 be brought here.
Leaving of view the want Of power OF Judge Bar
snard thus to restrain another equitable action the
same court which will be considered hereafter-which
want Of power well known TO all concerned
and considerirg for that he had the power
grant such an injunction upon proper case made, what
were the allegations upon which this extraordinary in
junction was Obtainedl Can judge in New York stop
litigation in any part of the state upon allegation
the defendant that the litigation Will njure hint The
result of everylaY-sut Injuries party other
And whether the suspension and removal Of Fisk &
Gsnld would work irreparablo injury TO the
Erie Railway was the very thing 70 be determined in
sbe Delaware County suit 1t might reasonably be urged
that the temporary confusion In the affairs OF the road,
iv the removal Of its executive officers, less injury
90 IL than the permanent Encouragement Of its affairs
and isappropriation OF its funds which Ramseys suit
sought 10 restrain At any rate, II Ramsey as stock
holder and creditor were entitled 10 the removal OF these
directors no arguments OF temporary Inconvenience
were the slightest answer to bis suit. repeat, that
while the allegation that the removal Of Fisk, &C. would
throw the affairs Of the Doad into confusion was perhaps
sufficient reason why the execution Of the order OF sus
pension should be stayed until they could be heard yet
no lawyer ever could pretend that il reason why