The New York herald., 1871-03-30
THE ERIE RAILWAY LITIGATION
.c~->~c~>>s>~~~]~~~~~~.
THE ENGLISH STOCKHOLDERS.
Injunction Sought For to Restrain
the Issue of More Stock.


the Issue of More Stock.
Yesterday the further nearing Of the case of
Heath and others against the Erie Railway Com
pany ana others was resumed in the United States
Circuit Court, before Judge Blatchford. The case.
as already stated. came up on demurrer by the de-
fendants to the bill OF complaint Lengthy argu-
meut on the merits OF the case pro and con. was
heard on Tuesday on tho part Of plaintins and de-
PENDANTS by the representative counsel on either
side whose turn IL was to address the Court Yes
serday fresh counsel came to the front and con-
xinued the fusilade Of legal oratory. The opening
gun was dred BY Mr. Eyarts on behalf OF the COM
plainants.
ARGUMENT OF Mr. EvARTs
Mr.. william n. Exarts opened the argument yes.
eerday In favor OF the plaintiffs. He contended that
there was no such infrmity In the position Of Mr..
Burt az plaintiff as would prevent him from obtain
ting legal redress as against parties who nterfered
with his ownership of the stock. That was settled
In the reports. How could party maintain an
action OF trover against the company that had not
admitted him on its books by transfer to q COM
pleted title for refusal to recognize his right to
transfer the stock unless he was the legal owner
Did man maintain trover on an equitable title TO
the thing ConvertedY Never. Who did own the
stooks The company dld not own It. The
man who sold II to the plaintiffs did
mot own It, and II the plaintins did
not own 1t then nobody owned 1t. As
the plaintiffs had not formed their bill
70 follow the receiver, innocent or accomplice
as the case mi ght be, burden themselves with
litigation In that respect as against him, they had
undertaken to say that the defendants had been
stewards OF this property, In Its revenue manage
ment, expenditure and contracts; and they had
fouud instances In which the defendants had played
the part OF the unjust steward. Now the master
calls upon the unjust steward to account TO him for
his stewardship Was 1t necessary that the steward
should bring IN all the servants to whom he had
shown favor and demand explanation from them as
TO the payment Of money more than was due to his
lords servantsf No. There was no demand that
Fske. Gould and Lane should account for the
$l00o,0Oo given to Vanderbilt or the $4,000 given
70 Sche for the benefits gained In the contract with
the Narragansett company. II was not asked that
Vanderbilt should answer for them nor the Boston,
Hartford and Ere Railroad Company. That was
not pretended. II they made them parties the bill
would be objected to as multlfarous.
The learned gentleman then proceeded to refer to
the election Of the directors Of the Erie Railroad
and in this connection he said he only asked for an
interlocutory order to those people to hold an cleo
ton. That might not be relief that could be granted
on this showing, as 1t had relation to an election
now passed; but II his learned opponents would
show any demand to oust any Of the directors not
defendants, from ONCE, or demand for relief in
decree based on this subject thus introduced as COL
lateral and historical In the progress Of the suit he
replied that there was time to demur to the bl be-
cause no such relief could be had II the plaintiffs
had put them In they could have demurred as the
relief sought on much better grounds, because 1t
could not pc granted, and the plaintiffs should have
Judge Blatchfsrd- There is no such relief sought
Tor In the Dill
Mr.. Evarts-Not In the prayer.
Mir. d. d. Fteld-There is q distinct averment In
the body OF the bin that there should be such relief
Mr. NJ: EvarssMit Is question Of the Interpretation
election was IN 1869. There was no classincati0a
made prior to that election. but the classification
was made prior TO the election or 187O 1t Is Ques.
h0n OF Interpretation
The learned gentleman then proceeded to de-
nounce the management Of the Erie Company and to
expose what he termed the cunning and daring that
had been exhibited in the case 0f the Erie manage
ment. He said that In the risk that was being run
between the vile, the injurious. the violent and
the fraudulent in every community against
the courage truth and Justice OF the good,
and coping with every institution, whether 1t were
executive, legislative judicial, to see whether it
could not finally put It's neck on just government.
governments that maintained civilization were as
steady, as courageous and as persistent In being
appeared, upon actual experiment, that Justice had
been two strong for one means OF frald, then the
attempt OF the fraudulent contrivers ana actors was
10 meet and overcome this condition OF judicial In
reference Under the advice Of their own cupidity,
and under study OF the law books, 1t made no
When hsy S5ad 5 com5at t III dssise #ita ssss MeapS
and armor hat were proof against the powers Of the
pressed in the prncipe that fraud shall not become
weapons that had not yet been drawn and that
the same courage and with the same ex-
ecution which the long precedents OF rhe
should be put In force against % that wicKedness %
that sometimes succeeded and heretofore had been
favored managers OF this Erie concern; to alleged
pirates bearing down on the shareholders and
dropping their booty in the lap OF this court; and
70 what he termed the vast scheme OF fraud de-
veloped in this Erie litigation. After advertng to
that this corporation was 10 much infected and in
tested with tile disease Of which he had complained
sae rights 81 the oo Of wdh e 9.
tors were considered TO be the protectors, to ap.
polnta receiver; S and ne &c concluded @ an eloquent
ment could by holding elections which it controlled
defeat she ends h Of Justice and the claims Of the
Outwltted and bound, as sampson was with his
wives.
ARGUMENT OF JUDGE CURTIS.
ExJudgc Curtis OF Massachusetts, followed for
the defendants. hi the course OF his brief address
question arising IN the case now the defendants OBJ
tanned their offices. The question IS, what is al
legged In the bill to have been done by the defendants
their office. 1t will be found that what is charged
In bill as having been done by these defendants
IN their respective offices amounts, when general
iEed. to tnfs-that these three defendants availed
themselves Of the power which was entrusted to
profit; that these three defendants, holding the
Offices one OF president another OF director and the
third ofsolicitor Of the company, usurped a power
not granted to them by the corporation anu used that
power to tocommitR breach Of trust for their profit.
This exhansts the legal substance Of every charge
In the bill filed against these defendants. the case
has been treated by counsel for the compainants as
case involving corporate action within the
corporate powers, or corporate act without corpo-
rate powers. Whereas In truth and In fact there Is
not in any one Of the allegations contained in the
bill and on which they ask for relief, In any legal
sense, corporate act done, within or without cor.
porate powers. They show no resolution Of any
board OF directors authorizing any Of the acts
charged. Tney show no vote OF any corporate meet
lng directing any OF these things TO be done. They
say that these three trustees OF the corporation have
secretly mlsued their powers, but they do not say
tnat these acts were known TO or sanctioned by the
board OF directors or the managing body. It Is q
case as they say, where the corporate power has
been nisused and where power has been usurped
by the defendants beyond the corporate power