Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1873-11-21
COTRT or I'D
JOEE.vRD TRR.u.
vi. VALLEY RAILROAD LITIGATION.

vi. VALLEY RAILROAD LITIGATION.
The hearing, before Chancellor Barrett,
of motions in four suits, began Tuesday
morning at the Brooks House, and occu
pied the time until late hour at night.
The present directors, with stockholders
representing large majority of the stock,
seek the possession of the books, papers,
seal and property of the corporation, now
in the possession of the old board, who are
really the Rutland Railroad managers. The
compliments complain that the refusal to
yield up the property to the stockholders,
is owning to dislike TO have their accounts
examined and settled, as we'll as because
such action would break up the Rutland
contract with the Central Vermont road,
and probably thrown both o. these en-
barassed companies into bankruptcy. On
the other hand, the Rutland Company
claim 10 hold possession of the Valley road,
under lorsc given by the trustees thereof
to Birchard & Page, who assigned the
same TO themselves or The Rutland road,
who transferred the lease to the Central,
and consented to give the latter 20 years
when the same expires by its terms. To
this the complainauts object, because they
say the Page lease has ceased by operation
of law, and no xtension has been authoriz-
ed by the stcc kholdcrs, who alone have the
power TO lease.
Two motions were heard, one by the
Valley Company and the other by one of
the trustees, for an order of reference to
Master to take and state an account, under
the decree rendered in 1871 by Chancellor
Barrett and if the trust shall then be de-
clared closed, To have the trustees, in pur-
suance of the terms Of the decree of 1871,
deliver possession Of the Valley road and
property TO the rightful owners- the W.,
Valley Co. of 1871.
AS these mutions are 10 enforce an lad
Illustrative decree of prior date to any
other pending suits, the compainantS cx-
pet TO com pei an accounting, dc.
a suit was commenced in the Windham
County Chancery Court in 1872 by the
stockholders Il majority of all the stock
and an injunction obtained, restraining he
then directors from executing twenty
years lease of the Valley road. The old
drectors--all, with one exception, Rutland
railroad officers and stockholders de-
fe ndants to this action. and have answered
therein. But, ii seem4, two of these de-
fendents, non-losidents, in violation of the
injunction of Nov. 1872, have filed bill in
the L. S. Chancery Court, and have obtain
ed an injunction against the present direc-
tors of the Valley CO., prohibiting them
from any action respecting the present so
called lease -thal is, the one given Page &
Birchard in 1865, aud claimed to have ex-
pired by operation of law.
The Valley Co. also havea supplementary
suit pending since September last, asking
for an Injunction against the old boards
claiming to act as directors for the possess
sion of the road &c.
The old board, by two of its directors, in
the L. S. Count, treat the present board as
the lawful directors but, before Chancellor
Barrett, they deny that the present board
were legally elected, and therefore refuse
to deliver possession Of the books, papers,
| or property.
The above is a brief sketch Of the various
suits, which are accompanied by a mass of
exhibits and long answers ofthe defendants.
All these cases were ably and deliberately
argued for compliments 10y Hon. l.. w.
Stoughton of New York and Il. j. Phelps
Of Burlington. an u brief statements made
for defendants by j. Prout, Esq, of Rut-
land and G. y. Davenport, Esq of Brattle-
boro-the latter claiming the whole matter
in the State Courts, except the Grinnell
suit, so called, TO be enioned by Judge
Smalley.
The gist of ,he difficulty seems to be this:
the old board, before they became such, as
the Rutland Company, covenanted to lease
for twenty years the Valley road TO the
Central managers, together with their own
and other leased roads, at high-not to
say extravagant-rent for the whole, and
un less they can deliver what they sold, are
in the Wall street predcament, and must
go TO the wall. Hence suits and counter
suits in the State and federal courts and
all the devices TO gain time in order TO ei-
feet this object. In the mean time the Val
ley road is wedged in between two nsol-
vent orpoi atoms, with no security for
their property or its rents and profits.
Judge Barrett reserved his decision, and
proceeded with the chancery dock ct at the
County Clerks Office on Wednesday.