, 1872-10-25
THE LAW COURTS.
NOTES OF INTEREST.

David H. Ford Is after the Chicago Water and
Gas Pipe Company again. This time he brings
3 bill il the Superior Court [41,03D to enjoin
he Company from selling or assigning its prop
uty. Petitioner writes that on the 22d August,
1871, and for many years previous, ha was en-
gagged in the manufacturing business, and,
hiding himself unable to obtain his collections,
made the facts known to his creditors, on the
date given: the result being that the parties
greed with him to form company, on basis
OF stock capital Of 9320,0o0, to acquire all
the assets and property as they
then stood; the corporation being constituted
OF A. B. Meeker. P. 2. Burtis, Samuel Hale,
o. n. Potter, Louis Wahl, Joseph E. Moss, and
Frank Sturges, under an existing act Of the
State Legislature, approved Feb. 49, 1857,
and named the David II. Ford Manufacturing
Company; Louis Vail being first President,
Joseph E. Moss first Secretary and Treasurer,
and the term Of the Company being fzed st
fifty years. On the formation Of the Company,
petitioner made 3 formal proposition for tho
eale Of his 1easehold interests in trust in the
lands and buildings, and for The transfer OF the
etock, and arbitrators were agreed upon, who
fixed the amount at 1921 1876. Instruments
Gere executed, transferring the property, in
consideration of such q sum to be paid, but Civ
.ioner would possess as condition. The Com
pany gave him stock certificates to the extent Of
$3.50 0000 ct par value, but refused to pay the
balance, and hence the action. He claims that
ho has lien on the property for the balance of
the purchase money, and charges that he is ap-
prehensiye for the safety Of his security, in con-
Sequence of the bad management of the con-
cern, By which the shares have deprecited in
value 80 per cent, and which may ultimately re-
duce the value much more, He prays that as
much Of the property as viii pny his full claim
be sold for his benefit
RAILROAD MATTERS.
The following is the verdict in the railroad
condemnation case,-Chicago, Milwaukee g. st.
al: That the petitioners take of the respond
ents, Herman Scgelken and Cessna Segelken's
land. described in the petition and answer, two
and twenty hundredths q 27-100) acres of
and Cessna sege1ken, are entitled to the sum Of
S2.724 for value of land TAKEN and 81 600 for
damages, IN full compensation for same.
Also. that the petitioners take Of the respond
cnts, John and Matilda Costello, Of the land
already described, one and sixty-two hun
dredths Il 627100) acres Of land, paying there
sor 20 592 value. and 81, 600 damages.
Also, that tho petitioners take Of Orville Pages
and o. G. Paeea land already described, two and
thirty-two h9ndredths g s2.1oo) acres Of land,
paying therefor s45475 for value, but no dam
Also, of Nathan and Caroline Wrights land,
two and thirty-four hundredths e 34-l00) acres,
paying therefor $3.50 for value, and S4,827
damages.
Also. of Solomon end Maria T. Smiths land,
eight hundred and eightJ-one one-thouaandths
(6B1-1 ,000) Of an acre. paying therefor 53,524
for value. but no damages.
also, OF John Mutt and Henry Brooks land,
seven hundred and eighty-six thousandths
(7s6-1 ,000) OF an acre, paying therefor 81. 600
value and S2,3 ,375 damages.
Also, Of Joseph B. Talcott's land, one hundred
one thousandths Q00-1O00) Of an acre, paying
therefor $500 for value and S225 for damages
Also. OF. the land OF John F. and Matilda Eb-
erhard, the whole Of Lots 8, and S, in Block 8,
and Lots IL, l2 and IT, in Block 4, Of tie land
described, paying therefor S., 900 for value, but
no damages.
Also. of Thomas Parkcr's land one and sixty
three lundredths Il G3-100) acres, paying there
for 1878 for value, but no damages.
Also, of the land Of the heirs-at-law Of Alex
ander White, three and twenty-Eix hundredths
Is 26-1oO acres, paying therefor 81 600 value,
but no damages.
The jury in the railroad condemnation cause,
Cincinnati. Chicago L. Indiana Central Railroad
Company Y. McAuley ct al, after being ompan-
elled. proceeded to view the property proposed to
be taken. Objection was taken by counsel for
the defendants as to the form OF the oath ad-
ministered to the jury, he maintaining that it
failed to cover the whole ground, especially