, 1873-05-25

we're, OF mlEat tnerea1Ief De. 1le Ie6poAoeAs
admits that in August last Lyon i Co. contract
ed with Culbertson, Blair Il Co. for the purchase
OF tan Thousand bushels OF spring wheat, No. 2.
The petitioners firm deposited a margin, and,
under the rules Of the Board, Culbertson, Blair
l. Co., had right to call on them for an addi-
tional sum, which they refused to give, the
real reason being that they we're hard-up, or
that they had to suspend, not being able to pay
for future delivery. Admitting what was
said about the inspection Of wheat to
lie true, yet the petitioners firm
could not be thereby released from it's obliga-
son. blair & Co. # the firm had such defense,
it should have been made before the Board OF
Directors. The answer then goes on to recapitu-
late the facts connected with the trial and sus-
pension Of the petitioner, and states that during
al these protracted proceedings, the petitioner
conceded the regularity Of the action. Of the
Board Of Directors, that it operated on him per-
sonally and individually, and the order Of sus-
pension applied to his individual case.
to eetasS eueh rules and Is It saw
fit had tho right to admit or e1pel such per-
sons "a it deemed proper, and could make, from
time to time, such laws as it saw fit for the goT-
eminent Of the corporation, when not opposed
to the laws Of the land Under these rules, the
Board Of Directors was authorized to take juris-
dic1ion Of the complaint, and that its proceed
inea should not be repudiated by reason of any
matter not brought to the attention OF the
Board on hearing the complaint, every essential
formhaying been observed. The petitioner has not
teen given ticket OF admission, but will receive
one when he satisfactorily settles his contracts.
the respondent, referring to the petitioners
proposition to deposit with the Board Of DlIee-
tors United States bonds sufficient in auesnt to
cover the claim OF Cu1bertaou, Blair d Co., II
they Won their pending suit, says the offer was
f. one Of form only, but preliminary to petition
mandamus for restoration. Even it the
had been estsy .endshea ss the BosTa sFan5a y
r not have taken any action in the matter. More
over the Board has full jurisdiction in case
like that Of the petitioner not subject to be oust~
ed by other proceedings: By becoming mem.
assented to eucb Jurisdiction, as he also
Complaint con made; and Excepting at no time to the
jurisdiction Of the Board. Nor should the Court
any question touching the right Of Caibertson,
Blair t. Co. to recover in any suit pending
against J. B: Lyon d Co., and the respondent
shou1d not be called on to take part in discus
sion Of them.
want, denies tho construction placed by the Pc
titioner On the action of J. B. Lyon l. Co., when
called On for their additional margin Nor
should the contract be go construed as to permit
J. 3. Lyon l. Co. to offer wheat at any
tertained . different opinion, they
should have stated their objection to having the
contract considered as being filed. J. B. Lyon
j. Co., had at the time Of the call on them no in
tention of fakfng tho wheat, and voluntarily
submitted to the closing Of the contract. The
pe.ition is therefore regarded as disingenuous
where it snys the petitioners firm was able to
take the wheat and pay for it, they having noto~
rious!y failed in business. The petition is in-
consistent with itself, and shows that j. B. Lyon
& Co. we're unable. or unwilling to take the
wheat The respondent, after pointing out other
inconaistsncies in the petition, deniea that it
elbows any valid excuse for the non-depoait
petitioner had one be did not state it. The in: :
spection Of grim had little, Il anything, to do
with the firm troubles, The respondent denies
that action in The complaint Of Culbertson.
Blair d Go. depended on any action By any COM
mittee OF arbitration or appeals, or any adjndl-
cation by them, or in any court Of law. Il the
petitioners firm had been willing to leave the
question OF liability 70 the Arbitration Commit
tee under tho rules, doubtless the suggestion
would hare been given due weight. But no de-
fence having been mede before the Board, they
should not have referred the claim to any com
naittee. The Board had right to act on the COM
plant. and, in doing go, did not trapsgress !
the laws Of the land, or disregard the rights Of
the petitioner as . member Of the Association, |
lie having ample time, opportunity, etc, to ap [
pear and be heard, and understood that the mat |
ter referred TO him personally, Ut he would have
made defense, or applied for time to make one.
Iha Board acted impartially, and it is de-
nied that one Of it's members was disqualified
from acting. Il be was, tho objection should |
have been made sooner.
The respondent has not been informed that !
the claim OF Culbertson, Blair d Co. has |
been satisfied, and cannot admit that /
the fact they hare instituted suit, is reason
Tor restoring the petitioner or disturbing the
order Of suspension. While the Bonrd took action:
against J. B: Lyon T. Co, Jet it was known TO
apply to all the individual members, Eor these
and other REASONS it is submitted that the prayer
Of the petitioner be not granted:
1iEssEs. SWEET AND HERR1CK :.
have prepared an argument upon demurrer to |
The answer, and which will be submitted to-mor-
row. when the consideration Of the case ia re-
Eumed. The chief points are as follows: II
The Bosrd Of Trade is corporation possess-
ing only the powers derived from ats chnrter
whose members have certain wel1-defned rights, /
snd as such, the Corporation is responsible to
he State TOR any abuse of it's powers, and sub
Ieet to its control through it's courts: The writ
Ut mandamus is the proper remedy to restore !
person to his standing as 9 member OF cor
galiy removed. A corporator cau be .dfBfran-
ehisea only for an infamous offense like perjury,
after conviction by the courts, for an offense
against his duty as corporator, IN which case
be may be expelled on trial and conviction by the
Corporation, and when mixed offenee has been
When the charter, as in the present |
:ase, authorized the corporation in general !
:etms to admit or expel such persons as they
night See tit without specifying causes, it is
merely Affirmative OF the common law right to
10 SO for reasonable scause. The courta have
granted the writ Of manda1nus to restore dis
Iranchised members in many cases, several Of
which a1e referred to. and it is concluded from
hem that courts will interfere where, from the |
Courts construction OF the charter, it deter
niues th.t the expulsion is not authorized bY it |
&1e 1,~+fn t1n,+n Han,. l.