Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-01-16

i U-LT UVULU u lT-IlE---T ~ - -
most absurd rule there Of equity that the
chancellor will not hear any argument OF
notify the other side when an injunction
has been applied for. II was one OF the
MOST IMPORTANT CASES
that could present itself to 3 chancellor,
for it involved the very incest questions
| of law. Il was 3 fair, legitimate claim o.
/ right. Nobody denies that IL WAS a tai
and legitimate claim of right, but, witt
/ the r~eprehensible rules of his court, no
man could be heard until he had decided
the preliminary question. Here was IN
yoIyed q franchise worth more than q mil
lion of dollars, involving questions that
| had never been touched upon in b State
| Of Tennessee. In q State court, With no
| notice given 70 your sdversart5s, and nc
argument allowed before the decision wal
msds, without sRy enlightenment thai
association with the counsel in the cast
by their briefs or arguments could pos
sibly present, this decision was rendered
which the gentlemen claim as
DECISIVE.
Well, we set up q claim of right, anC
that decision limited q right. Il de
clsred that we were entitled 70 certain
privileges; that the GGyoso Gas company
could not 90 above US on the streets, snc
could not come near enough to Us to dam
age Us; but without any argument, with
/ out an opportunity for consideration, his
honor decided that VIC had no exclusive
privilege.
Now 1 am coming to the evidence in this
case. I am coming 70 the evidence OF my
/ friend Humes and myself. Immediately
at that very time there wss q purpose on
on the pact of the city OF Memphis TO SIC
/ this rival company with q subscription.
It was known at The time
THIS INJUNCTION WAS REFUSED.
Il ran from the 18th to the I7th, and on
| the I7sh it culminstsd by the passage Of
I the ordinance or resolution in the board
| Of mayor and aldermen that they would
subscribe to the stock of this company.
Now General Humss had been en-
ployed, and he had essocisted me witt
him. I am coming to the evidence, and
I wasn't your honor to understand me, be.
cause the whole thing hinges here, and ]
am willing to risk iE in any court not Only
in America. but in England, Russia, OF
anywhere else. We were employed BY
the company 1 said this ended on the
18th. We had known before that the citJ
1 would pass this resolution Oar advice
to our clients occurred between the l2sE
and the I7sh. If there is any fraud in 5h'
case I shoulder az right here; Whatever
there is CT wr5ng-whetsver there is o
Observation-Disclosures there is repre-
! n6I5LD4d-N E61bNCL k4EAE - NAER AA--7
crosses right am responsible, hexe, II
the supreme court, snd IN any COuri
where in any msnnsr the prOpriety o
my conduct is called IN question. They
did not originate It.
OUR CLIENTS DID NOT ORIGINATE TIL
SUIT
They did not know anything shout Il
they did not know how 70 proceed, snC
they employed General Humes and my
self to maintain the aus OF the cOrpOTS
ton in the chancary court, and we dis
maintain it to he best Of cur ability snC
obtained q partial injunction,
We knew that this very MISTER was &
trsnspire whereby the city would be in
vOlved, and having chsTgs OF tbs interest
OF the CORPORATION, Snd at b same tim'
of the interests Of Mr., Dean, we ourselves
as the tsstimOnyin this case showed, orig
mated sll that took plsce. We did II. L
was q pure question OF law; it was not
cues ion Of fact az al, but it wSs a Ques
tion Of the tribunal and tbs righ5 % so Z,
that tribunal We advised il, and We ar,
responsible for i, snd when cur l5srr6C
friends on the other side have charged U.
in the open criticisms that they have in
troduced into the matter, they have dOn'
rightly. We are the
TARGETS o THEIR SHOT,
and the proper targets.
Now, when cur clients came to us and
advised with US after the city had deter
mined upon this course, two things Werl
to be investigated. Now, your Honor il
to wholly lose sight Of the Sth Wallac'
case, aud you are to put yourself in tbs
position that General Humss and mysel
| occupied at the tiias.
We srs not "sbys5ers." It 10 not pre-
tended by the gentlemen on the other sids
that we had NOS the fcrcs Of character that
entitled Us TO S DESCENT position IN the pro
| fessiOn, We are not men that could bs
called upon 70 prosecute = malicious pur'
pose or q clsnd5stine operation. They
hsYe had fall opportunity TO ssy that, il
they thought it, but they have not said t.
| They do NOT think 1t, snd they would not
say IL in order 70 gain their case. There Is
not one Of those gentlemen who would say
| that this company went 20 either General
! Humss or myself and took advice m thil
case because they thought that We were
/ persons who would
CL-ANDEsTTNELY
lead them TO OpeTs5e q malicious purpose
On ths contrary, 1 latter myself that my
learned friends on the ether side believe
that If we had been approached for the
purpose of prosecuting any such purpOss
we would have calmly resisted It.
Well, then, we advised as to how they
HCLu " DAbCbEAs LHQHH MAHG AAA We G4'
wise our cj6nts2 We advised our clients
that Mr., Dssn, being 3 nonresident o.
the Ststs OF Tennessee, a citizen OF New
York, he had g right, as 8 mstter Of
personal citizenship, to 90 into the Fed
ersl court of the United States against any
wrong dOeF that ssssilsd his distinctive
property or stock Of this corporation cut
side Of any call UPON them Is g citizen
| Of New York.
BE had A RIGHT
to bring his suit for any claim in the
Federal court OF the United States. Your
nonoT understands met
The Court understand that YOU sd,
/ viSed him to do that in this case, although
there were resident stockholders
Colonel McRea-We advised that out
side of this case, being 3 citizen Of New
| York, on the mere question OF party OF
! person, he had sTighE 20 bring his suit ia
the F5 isrsl court Of the United States
against the Memphis Gsyoso Gas com
psny and against The city. We then sd
Vised that, IS q corporation or st0ckhOl3eI
in a corporal on, he had 3 right to bring
that corporation before the court for the
purpose Of giving that corporation relief
In this case while irrespective Of any de-
mRnd OK refusal that they may make to
prosecute his rights; in other words, that
the
COULD SUE
a wrong-doer for snyaet that be undertook
to p~erpetuate upon the corporation that
touched the destructive feature Of pro-
perty or stock that tbs stockholders held
10 It in other words that violated OF in
iured the franchise of the company.
I will repeat. We advised that the
stockbolder in q company has as against
an outside wrong-dOer, the right 10 file q
bill in q court Of equity. Now we have
passed out of tEs Jurisdiction Of the Fed
ersI couTt-ha had the right to require sn
equity court TO take eOgniz nee Of the
complaint, whereby he alleges that his
distinctive property in the sock of his
company Was damaged by the wrong
deer.
The Court-o utside Of the demand and
refussl7
Colonel McRas-Yes, sir. Now II the
advice is erroneous, putting aside this
8 Wallace case, If Il Is founded on princi-
pie or analogy, or authority lathe estima-
tion Of respectable lawyers honestly in
vestigating the question, then, however
erroneous Il may be, it is sufficient to pro-
tect their client. Unless it Is
UTTBRLY BNFoUNDED,
It is sufficient to protect their client.
Now, we originated this. We were
counsel interested with the maintenance
Of their interests and rights in this Gaze,
and we we're the originstors Oar clients
In tails CASE did 0 know anything about
1t. II was a pure question OF law. We
originated it aud we commanded it. We
directed the minds Of our olieBts-we did
not follow in their wake-snd said to
them, those are our propositions. We
are both msn Of fair repute. We hsve
not the standing and ability that our
learned friends on the other side hsve
attained to, but we sfe men OF ordinary
and tOlerable experiences and Learning IN
our profession, removed above tbs ides OF
sshyssers,1 and I think In q moral p0int
of view, wholly incapsble Ct doing q
known wrong. Well, we
ADVISED THEsE GENTLEBzEE,
ssYou have z Eight TO 60 into the circuit
I courkQf the United States, Ar. Dean, by
/ reanou az c.tlzspabip. You have 4 right