The New York herald., 1872-11-15
PoRr JERvrs, N. Y, Nov. Il, 1872.

PORT JERvIs, N. Y, Nov. II, 1872.
One OF the most important lawsuits ever known
In this State, involving immense amounts, and
which has been in litigation since 1857 has at la st
been decided in the Court OF Appeals according to
advices received here The parties to the suit are
the President, Managers and Company Of the Della
ware and Hudson Coal Company and the Pennsyl-
vania Coal Company. The action was founded upon
an agreement made on the 3lst of August ls47,
between the first named company and what was
then known as the Wyoming Coal Association, own
ing and operating mines IN Luzerne county, Penn
sylyania.
THE CONTRACT
was for the transportation OF coal for the Wyoming
Association over the Delaware and Hudson Canal
from Hawley, Pa to the mouth of Rondout Creek,
1t to be brought to Hawley by gravity road, then
constructing over the mountains from the mines
at Pittston and DuDmore. The canal company
agreed to carry the coal OF the other company to
the terminus OF the canal, charging and collecting
a toll OF so much per ton upon the coal so trans
ported. The amount OF toll annually was to be
fixed on the lst day of May, and to be one-haf the
surplus OF the average selling price per ton OF the
COAL 81 so always to be deducted from such selling
price as the cost to the coal company OF getting
ton Of coal to tide water. provision was in
serted in the contract upon which the controversy
just decided was founded. This was that in case
the Canal Company enlarged its canal it might
charge and collect an additional toll on the coal
transported at rate per ton to be established
after the completion OF such enlargement
THE PENNSYLVANIA COAL COMPANY,
subsequent to agreement TO this contract by both
the parties, succeeded to all the rights and interest
of the Wyoming Coal Association, and by an agree
ment made on the Goth of july 1851, stood in its
place as the original party to the contract.
on the 2sth OF July, 1853, the canal company noti-
Ga.f tt
so as to permit the passage of boats carrying from
125 TO 150 tons, instead OF the former capacity Of
boats OF fifty and sixty tons, and estimated that
this change saved to the coal company in carrying
its coal to tide water forty cents per ton, which
must be deducted from the former allowance Of
So so per ton. on the 1st of August following the
coal company replied and denied the saving alleged
but declared It's readiness TO have
THE DISPUTED POINT
settled by arbitration. To this the canal company
agreed ana t Azar Mr ragg ana
between the parties. This arbitration resulted in
nothing satisfactory, and the action just decided
IN the Court OF Appeals was brought by the Della
ware and Hudson Canal Company in April 1857.
by their complaint the paintls claimed to recover
additional toll, at the rate OF twenty cents ton,
upon 2o7, ,735 tons of coal transported by the de-
PENDANTS over the canal from september Is to
also asked that the Court ascertain Oh determine
the reduction IN the cost Of transportation per ton
on the canal between the points named-owing to
cause-and that the amount thus ascertained
might be established and adjusted for the govern
ment OF the parties under the contract as to all
coal transported by the defendants subsequent TO
the completion OF the enlargement on the 18th of
July 1858. They also asked that one-hali of the
amount of such reduction be adjudged to be there
after permanently chargcab!e as additional toll
under the contract for all coal transported by tile
defendants.
THE COAL COMPANY
answered by denying that the enlargement of the
canal had occasioncd any reduction in the cost OF
transporting coal, and that the failure OF the arhi-
tration to settle the question was owing to the
choice OF the plaintiffs ana the defendants being in
default as to the contract made Tor determining
upon the reduction and establishing the additional
toll by arbitration, the plantitis could not proceed
by action TO establish such toll or determine the
reduction.
THE CASE REFERRED.
by consent OF the parties the cause was referred
to the late Judge Henry Iogeboom for hearing and
decision upon all the issues. The testimony taken
before the referee filed ten large printed vol
umes, and his fees exceeded twenty
thousand dollars. The reference overruled
upon the arbitration clause Of the contract and de-
cided many important questions OF law and fact.
His Judgment was that the reduction in the cost OF
transportation occasioned by the enlargement of
the canal, alter experiencing the iu effect Of all
the improvements OF the canal was ten cents ton
The plaintiffs were adjudged entitled TO charge and
collect as additional toll five cents ton upon all
the defendants coal transported after the enlarge
ment and notice thereof from the 2Sth OF July
1852, and TO a money judgment of s16is1 43, with
interest, but without cost TO either party.
Judgment was SO entered; but The defendants
appealed from the referees decision the General
Term. The plaintili also appealed, insisting that
from the facts found by the referee they We're ontl-
tied to charge and collect additional toll $500.
ton instead of five cents, as allowed. Both appeals
were heard at the same time, ana the Judgment
was affirmed Both parties thereupon appealed to
the Court OF Appeals, where the case was argued;
in June last. Un Tuesday the Court reversed the
Judgment on the appeal as taken by the defendant,
and airmo the Judgment on the plaintiffs appeal.
The decision OF the Court Is understood to be in
favor OF the Coal Company on all points.
Up to the time the case was taken TO the Court OF
Appeals the taxable costs had amounted to
Sl50000 or 100000.