Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-03-06
ONLY A MILLION.
III. Ste Shens vs.. The Western and
Atlantic RaiIroad Company.

III. Ste 1hfnS vs.. Inc western and
Atlantic RaiIroad Company.
From the Atlanta Constitution, March 1.
1t is only few weeks since we had
occasion to give our readers a concise
statement of bill fled by Gen. Robert
Toombs, as attorney for the Seago COM
bination, against the Western and At
lantic Railroad Company. The object
of this bill is to set aside the present
lease. On Friday this gentleman filed
another bill against the same defend
ants. The statement of the case is
Alexander II. Stephens VS.. the Western
and Atlantic Railroad Company, of
Fulton county, and George FL. Halle
hurst, of Bib county. The amount
sought to be recovered is only one mil
lion dollars The following is a con-
densed statement of the principal ale
cations inthis bill. Mr.. Stephens charges
that on the 9th day of December, in the
year 1870, he became one of the lessees
and preprietors of the Western and At
lantic Railroad, then the property of
the State, and on the same day was In
corporated under an act of the Legis-
lature of Georgia, passed the 18th day
of October, in the same year, with d.
vers other persons, also lessees, as
member under the name and style of
the Western and Atlantic Railroad
Company. That he was entitled to
half of one share In said lease, being
enc forty-sixth part of the whole. That
after said road and its appurtances
were turned over to said Company, he
conveyed to the State of Georgia all of
his interest for reasons satisfactory to
himself. That until recently he be-
heved his deed of conveyance had been
accepted by the State. That sometime
before the first Of October, In the year
1871, meeting was held of persons
styling themselves the Western and
Atlantic Railroad Company, which
meeting determined that with the
consent of the State of Georgia.
and of the securities upon their
bonds, they would receive IN the place
of A. H. Stephens, George H. Hazel.
hurst, of Bib county, and have trans
ferred to him the one-haf share of
Stephens, which they declared he had
surrendered and abandoned by his ac-
ton. That he had no notice of any
kind of this action, and they only be-
came known to him during the summer
of 1873. That Rufus Bullock, then
Governor Of Georgia, gave the desired
executive permission for the transfer;
that it was accepted by said George H.
Hazlehurst, and that he has continued
to receive ashare of the rents and profits
of said road up TO the present time.
The bill further charges that this grant
to George H. Hazehurst is utterly ille-
gal and void, also that neither
Gov. Bullock, Gov. Conley, Gov.
Smith, or the Legislature have ever re-
ceived Mr.. Stephens gift TO the State
or ever claimed any right under his
deed. That the said one-half share is
therefore still his property. That the
company have never notified him of
their meetings, or furnished him with
any information as to their business,
their receipts or their expenditures.
The bill closes with a demand that he
have full access to and the examination
of all the books of said company, from
its organization TO the final settlement
of this case, and to receive his portion
of all the profits earned by said corpo-
ration, amounting to one million dol
lars, or some other large sum. 1t also
prays that the grant to Hazlehurst be
vacated. To the bills are annexed as
exhibits the deed from Mr.. Stephens 10
the State, the minutes of the meeting
which made the transfer to Hazlehurst,
the written consent of the securities,
and the executive warrant.