The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-10-15
VANDERBILT AND ERIE.

There was q time when the Erie Railway tiga-
lions monopolized to a great extent the time OF
the courts. This golden placer Tor the lawyers
has given but slight yield since the change in the
management OF the road. But 1t was hardly to be
expected that the legacy OF suits left BY the old
management could be speedily adjudicated. The
goose OF the golden egg, though its feathers were
greatly ruined, was not killed outright. And so,
while the great head and front OF the suits,
James Fisk, il, is now beyond the reach
OF earthly tribunals, these old suits, or at
least some very important issues growing
out OF them are sim awaiting final legal arbltra
suits is that brought by the present management
OF the Erie Railroad to recover S., 900, 00O from
pao az @ NJ and % aa nud 9een n
road was under their management. The case came
up for hearing yesterday IN the Supreme Court,
General Term, Judges Daniels, Donohue and Law
renee being the bench 1t was the old, old story,
revised and enlarged this and nothing more
Though the printed proceedings already make two
bulky volumes. and though the argument OF the
opposing counsel, which though occupying nearly
nortonaseIy long drawn out. there were essen
TALLY no new facts stated that have not already
been given in the HERALD during the progress OF
counsel appeared on both sides, the Erie Railway
being ~ e56pdge
judges Beach and Porter appearing for Commo-
dore Vanderbilt.
The transactions out OF which the present ap-
peal arises date back to 1868, and the present ti-
cation well known as an important part OF
the history of the times in which IL occurred that
statement OF all the details Is not essential to an
understanding OF the case. 1t is claimed on the
one hand that Mr. Vanderbilt was enabled to ex-
tort this $4,000, 900 by means or the use he and
those acting IN concert with him had made OF the
processes OF the Supreme Court, by means OF
troll OF the funds Of the Erie Railway Company
Drew Fisk, Gould and others-and that he made
them pay this money to him as condition
OF their returning, meantime promising to discon-
tlnue the suits then penang against the company.
which was done. On the other hand II Is alleged
that Mr. vanderbilt had nothing to do with the
suits, and that the receipt OF the money was an
independent transaction and had nothing TO do
with the Erie Railway Company or It's affairs.
However as already stated. the new managers OF
the road thought differently and have brought suit
for the recovery OF the money, which they claim
was Illegally transferred IRON the Golfers OF the
company TO the pockets OF Mr.. vanderbilt. Judge
Barnard heard the case ana dismissed the COM
plant, and the present is an appeal from that
Judgment. EX-Judge Stipman opened the argu-
ment His first point was proposition, which
case That officers of corporations, to whom
the care and management OF corporate property
Is con1ded by law are trustees OF that property
bound by the strictest rules OF law to execute
their trust literally, intellgenty and honestly,
and TO that end 10 devote the corporate property
to its appropriate and intended uses and none
other. His second point was that enc who re-
ceves trust property with either actual or con-
structve notce OF the trust, ard with actual or
constructive notice that 1t Is being dealt with
contrary to the terms OF the trust and in breach
thereof Is liable. and bound 70 restore the trust
property or It's value, wrongfully diverted
rom it. HIS third point was that one who re-
ceves rust property as security ior or In salts
to himself is not a bona Jtde purchaser thereof,
ana is liable TO refund even without notice
OF the trust either expressed or implied. The
next point urged was that the payment
OF this money was fraudulent incorporation
OF the funds OF the road by its officers, involving
fragrant breach Of trust. further point was that
1t was sought to conceal the depravity Of the
by eaea e re 9m 81
urged two polnts-arst that there is no privity OF
contract nor any relation between the defendant
and the Erie Railway Company out or which any
duty or obgauon arises between them, and, Sec
ond, that cOncedng that the purchase was made
on peh ar O the Erie Railway Company, the aspect
or the case would not be altered. He will finish
his argument this morning, and then will be iol-
lowed by the two remaining counsel who Will con-
cude the argument.