The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1871-05-24
NEW YORK HERALD WEDNESDAY, MAY "a ls7l-TRPLE SHEET

yestgation has shown that without voting
$500 s0 shares Of %amssSs % disputed stcos
the Church directors must have been elected,
OF the Groesbeck stock. 1t became therefore I'M
portant 10 the Church party 10 have the election
presided over by inspectors VINO would properly dis-
to the Ramsey party to have inspectors who would
permit the voting OF The $500 shares OF stock on
which only ten per cent had been paid, aud even
that by the conversion or assets which belonged To
the bona I'd stockholders. The result OF this con-
tors. The poll at which Mr.. Fuller voted
was called the "llarrls poll" Just as this
poll was opened an Injunction was served upon the
inspectors forbiddng the receiving OF any votes OF
Church party unless the holders oil the Groesbeck
stock should first have been allowed To vote on tnat
stock. The moment this injunction was served upon
them a new and unexpected necessity arc @ FOR re-
ceying votes on that stock from some one. The
Fuller has testified that when he went TO Albany to
attend the election he went az the request OF no one;
undecided ABOUT voting. lhe injunction iorhid-
dug The inspectors at the Harris poll to receive
any votes unil this stock had been voted
either defeated the election or the receiver must
VOTE This stock mad been transferred TO him, and
he ncld IT as trustee Tor the benefit OF all the parties
having an interest taereln. A large majority OF the
stockholders desired tho votes cast IN ocnalf Oh the
Churcn and against The itainsey party. the neccs'
ated BY tie sharp practice oil Ramscys counsel and
the evident msapprehenSion OF the facts on the
part of the juGgc. WHAT can be thought Of man
wao owning u few shares OF stock In corporation,
procures upon the eve OF an election an injunction
against any election beng had un Il his stock
vote his stock? THIS II il alleged Is what Groes
beck tried to do and II Fuller the receiver had not
been present, the election would have been pre-
vented by this contrivance.
Mr. Cults, in this OPP MON. has most efectually
disposed OF the charges made against MI. Field
OF attempting to control this election by the
presence OF roughs. simultaneously with the ap.
pearance Of Mr.. Curtis pamphlet the opinion OF
the General Term OF the Fourth department, by
amined Is promulgated IL is true the decision OF
Mr. Justice f. Darwin Smith upon the slnge point
sustaining the election OF the Ramsey directors IS
not 0yerruicd but 1t must be remembered that thus
depended much upon issues of TACT, and tnat the
rule that unon question OF tact they Will not over
rule the Judge in The court below II tnere Is any
eyaence waaeyes 10 SUSAN ms noo cny
seems TO have regretted. They say
aa re opening dssndan. counsel DEMANDED en-
5 Was n ms G o & ann e Gqnns s
opening Of the counsel was made 10 COED sh sns
counsel bat they had entered
overruei Judge who this could decde
of Fd ia cain ia no sS We
ss into mot so ooy matte. as & q
but very appropriate
The learned Judge who delivered the opinion Of
the court in this case. alter having thus Clearly ex
pressed his view as 10 the necessity OF proper ind
Ing Of facts III the case, proceeds to say:-
1hays examined the points presented oy the appesns'
S the s' g. n e S the
rsg Of tie learned Judge who tried tho any
WEB we as s 9a @
sccGn Of the f s 1Ss ss sn .' S s
to the Herrck and Barnes anu ordering that the
properly of the company
After reversing almost every other point decided
by Judge Smith, most elaborate opinion is con.
cluded Us f0llOws:-
We this without expressing profound
hs II the n n o to Us
also between counsel should have been excited The mag
ns Of the to IN Uea and so,s The real
in the of The Of those who believed
cemsn: and passion All this passed away ana we DO
SSs S with he sesr q 1
Railroad Company neutrality-suspicious. The great excitement
ton affords much pleasure to be able that
noDs ,'Lqp,, u, Ae. se1,slig. g he aioa eMe
aase e"g1aed Ri" sn % ' P''''' S'"'
From these suits grew one in behalf OF
ana certain OF It's directors On the nth of Novem.
Der, 1869, lew days before the day fixed Tor
quehanna Railroad Mr. Ramsey made oath s to a
complaint in the city OF Albany against certain
drect0N5 OF the Erie Railway Company. The at
suit were practitioners in the city OF New York,
gentlemen WHO, unti lew months previous to the
bringing OF this suit, had been the confidential adj
vlsers OF the company, and who had received from
1t Tor ices during the year previous within fraction
OF $40 600. TIA principal Offices OF the Erie Railway
Company were IN this city. The venue was laid In
Delaware county. The summons was dated at New
York. The complaint alleged that Ramsey was the
legally payable by said company" Under the Code
Ramsey, the plaintiff, and Groesbeck, the appointed
receiver, were examined, before trial, In the city
aud county of New York. Ramsey proved " that he
was The owner and holder OF u past due claim Tor
money against and legally payable by SAID CON-
pany,n as ioows:-
@ WHAT'S the pas. due claim Tor money against the Erie
Raway cSmnsny which in that complain, yoa state YOU
held by me aud upon the securities
far l. connected with the preferred stock. A. have
not the data here 70 stat, (, the precise amonn
pany that s due A. None except connected with the bonus
O. 90 believe that anything actually due those
bonds a. There . but cannot say that there :
stated My impression that there 10 nercs: due upon
ses o as % Ii. said
company have not any further than the commsuce
We must refer TO Mr.. Groesbeck's testimony to
ascertain how this "clalm for money against and
legally payable by said company" was acquired by
Mr.. Ramsey, the plaintiff
O. Was Mr. Eaton acting in this matter your counsel?
O. What VAS the conversation between you and himp A.
Mr. Eaton said Mr. Ramsoy had better have such and such
O. For what purpose A. For the purpose commencing
O. Why were these particular bonds better than others for
that parPo,e3 4 can't answer that question; sir.
q. Had Mr. Ramsey referred you to MI Eaion? A.
Y ysrSaIy y issr A Ny impression 1. verbally T.,
tell you what securities Tor me to
On complaint based upon such claim and so
acquired Judge Murray. OF Delaware county, at
Special Term held at Delhi. granted an order ap-
pointing David Croesbeck special receiver OF the
funds and property or the Erie Railroad company,
and all its branches, with the most extensive and
sweeping powers that can be conferred upon re-
ceiver Another order Was obtained on the same day
suspending Gould, FISK, Lane and five other
directors OF the company from acting either as
directors or Officers OF the company or In any other
capacity whatever about the AFFAIRS OF the company;
ana yet another order restraining all creditors or
the company from insltuting any suit to collect or
secure taeT debts, restraining all the defendants
from nSiifuting any suit to embarrass or delay Mr..
Ramseyia preseat suit, restraining them also from
aceenliD on admit ng service for the company, ana
directing the company and the directors not sus-
The company 20 be faithfully and adequately repre-
scented IN this Ramsey present suit. Mr.. Runkle,
an attorney, was then employed BY the connse
for Ramsey, Tie plaiD'lff, 10 appear, and ala
appear for the company. AS soon as the
papers were served upon the parties defendant