, 1873-02-25
Liability Of Stockholders Of 0ompa-
MES for Untransferred
Stock.
Arrest Of an Attorney for Al
legged Malpractice.
lpIproIun:1ry fians|aughter' Weighed
end Found Worth Five Years.
Yates from the Bankrupt and
Other Courts.

81 y !
nm but, instead OF that, he stated that be onl,
fu.td to esy r few words to counsel. for he
H., nat difficulty that hcd not been touched
i~,n ty tho arguments. If the first section OF
!. su-6lux bill Cave the Fertilizing Company
,ieht to bring bill in his Court, it followed
ls,tit Tould have the right, whom sued in the
late Court, by aoy other party affecting rights
I'D rzmedies Of the same character as those do
;l<bed IN the original bill, to have the case
;b.rtfer7ed to the Federal Court. Counsel
E..uud to take it for granted that, if ono was
,4z4, the other necessarily followed. This diff
{7tv WIS to follow th.t as q necessary sequuur.
b. h.d no. been able to liz his eye upon the
Et which would authorize the transfer Of tho
a.st trom the State to the Federal Court under
l. n1tiordri issued rpon the petition Of de-
k4d.ut.
w. snest eaid it WAS not argued the other
b. md hs.had not time to do it at once. He
kzn Ike delay. to enable hin to state his
.Em.
L. Judge t!ated that, if counsel we're willing.
Ea1 no objection to giying his views upon
lu other points involved. ;
IRE being none, he did 80, as follows:
gneeding it Has case provided for by the
RESTITUTION, there must be an act of Congress-
{tas ths Court original jurisdiction. Tho1e
II tso be N act to authorize transfer from
Ina Court to Federal one. Many questions
tir;.sn in which there was no provision for
kErl jurisdiction, unless tho Ku-Klux bill
hill md in this case that Was the question.
Il "a. question Tas whether the Court had iu-
E:Ho1 of tho original bill. Doubtless, Con-
H. Tien it created charter, and gave rights
IL i, m.da contracts which the Const1tu-
f=Fosacied. and that must be considered as a
&1AhF. So this charter of the Fertilizinr |
erauy vas contract granted by the Illinois |
f4tture, which the Legislature Of ulinoi,
fzaot ch1oge, and came under the category
ft:sss and innunities sought to be affected
4..unfago.able legis1ation OF State. Con-
81Suld clotho the Federal Courts with orig
H1sansterred Jurisdiction. The question was,
@sdone 60 In tho case under consideration.
aEst section Of the law Of 1871 provided
seeze any person tried to deprive another
Unconstitutional rights which he onjoyed !
IT, my unfdendly State Legislation, The
IL Courts should have jurisdiction. One
Eaan Tss that the law referred to natural |
Ha, and TINT Congress did not in
II % include corporations. It was not
force, but should not prevail. it it could I
Hn that Persons had rights, and priyi-
Hnd mmanitiss, and, that they rero af-
IVY - Slate Law. Tho fact that these
s5s held property under the name Of cor E
- could not deprive them of the rome j
Aahx sought to confer. The Supreme :
8 I'd decided that the clause Of the Consti- :
a H;hat the citizens OF one STATE should be :
Hsto al the privileges Of citizens OF an7 t
aes applied only to persons, and not to Q
aooe, 50 that it appeared that a =
Sa discriminate as against corporations. t,
Il terminating Gcts complained Of had been | a
8Stob in violation Of the law, since the | h
saoa referred only to citizens. It seemed | .
MEAL 1t Tould be shooting in the dark to s.
e. me nights OF q pereon in relation to Il
Il should bepzotected under those clauses =
Ethe nights Of the same person as mem
II H!sofporatlon should not be. Why could
#;goaf1 treat the corporation as person.
a9eH1ong: Therefore. if the bill Showed r
nsas y oi persons were affected, though 4
HA corporation, they had right to -. -.
IT, redress PORTED cut 'ly the ssatuie: y !.
s,!med they had rights under the u
&-aon which we're to be afrected g,
eoor Of law, and as where the T. ~
aohe oy the corporation redress would ~, "
E:aacf the statute, there should be re- *
s&'e the wrong Eas done to the corpora- Sc
iaanation Of his mind WA that +ba law "
1scout jurisdiction IS an or;r;na1 % d0 nTo. ,n 60
n: he had not becn ablo ia III his eve ~. ~
f~ucalAr provision authorizing trans tSs
4ase from State to Federal Cont: ~
HIsu:uaoa provided that no State should | ta
Nv impairing the obligation OF a con- - -
f., "aen the New Hampshire law WAS ~
u the Dartmouth College case, q -
a. brought the suit.
H4-ruity waE fin ~. l.. /
4 as to what provision Of law directly IA.
aptesent case before him. He would ~
a;o 1hat question argued, and have n
&tas cut some statute authorizing the -, ~.
A;s0a state to Federal Court. ~
HS emith intended to have made dis xo.
IT. On the c1tiordri, that clearly it ~ ~
&c done for want Of statute. The ~ H.
T. referred to the Civil Service act for -
IT, o. remedy, and that only gave a .,1
there the defendant WIS sued for pte
HTa wrong in trespaas, etc. ca!
& &saao understood 1fr. Smith, but coun- ~ ~
Es"aer side Ind assumed their position. tG<
tncrs had original jurisdiction, it ~ r.,
EaI 70 order = transfer, ho'
f.aock ssld they had not gone elab- 1ao Mo
3~SgLae question. What they wanted 4 1ot
III oetaJs and prompt decision "a 1a1
>f1ttr ininncf;c,, r. Sa1.o Gppy appiy toi tion
{sasaictie,7. tEev e,,o-,,5 ~ oot uau as. ter
Gnmtuncf;o1 o1o n8'o "ptAeo al at O
{'s:issid 1ha o+1o. III. tho
~aeeaed a tha. it there was original
IT, 4e cause could be transferred. He IL
/ With his argument in any reason hrs
T., for
H.asNd if they had anr act tbav sbon1d nndt
once. ' '1' &n7s "n'u1o and
Eld they based tbe inr;ad;ct;on ~, colo
OF 1868. 1863. '6i,.7e and 10 IA forW
S1W argue the matter o,, '+ho fo1Ior;,o RENT
Il '4o IT
~! On both sidos aoraa;,. ~. ,,o;,,+ ton
H'a De argued this morninr. sent
II 4E.LAT1oSs OF COMPANIES AND LII
H. !, STOCKHOLDERS. pear
f1atnham: Judge Hopkins yester- t9e c
H<nE trial: ~ '~'' cepti
8<rnsrs..e r.ess W oppressed upon the trial TINT M
8Sts;so 8StLs u the certificate did not of itself IN
3Ssagnee etockholder. or create y il Of tn
n ae<1esats such tsansferee to pay the Com Boyc
H. h.. :. IN controversy authorities | verdi
5eooTpora .,o4 u.aole 1e holder OF ftock is fixed
ar !atnk sk erred In directinc a rcriict ~ afy
esead of suhmittinr - ~ ;t1sa t t1e trial
a1ntnt t ING conduct Of the defendant 10fe
HI ~ .oa request, or assent on Lis part, simpl
&cd.,,A Aae s1s upon the Btock-book "a be ca
1atame ~ Asnes ne Company had not, fined
3tta hi. "a etockholder In the stock t,1sen
L seogalzed tha .trsnatsr ~ - = teEa. for th
M Atnss.ading ts1a4:s5adin Its wan: OF conformity Mre
tas1er contemplated by- its laws ters il
SslSnI asy given tending to show such the sc
8asqnrro'' oua have been left to the jury. tions
H. ia benes4 ~ hns1ess H. TO be upon the erty.
&ssiye It and - fae ooinp pS9s, ana ne In 4
his assent e1nress ~ ~ ;+aniiad - in the
&eestly to The Company for ff1tnrs "a 1asT,
E n.s n.sea4sry Of his name on the books Is dead-l
As<nd m r.e sn the rights Of stakeholder, fonse,
NFAr,e eI-c1pate I-e IN dividends, and COZ costs.
II eaich -: l1ore an equitable into Legal | Of viii