The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1874-10-23
THAT CONTRACT.

There seems to be an impression among
some Of the citizens OF Lyen county, that
under the contract entered into by and
between Ruggies & Plumb and the Board
| OF County Commissioners OF Lyon county,
the fee OF SG6. 10000 in stock OF the NJ, X.
q T. r. Il. Co., Is dependent upon their
success In the law suit. Let us see II that
IL so. What success must they meet with
We quote from the contract: Ruggles &
Plumb will. within a reasonable time,
for and on behalf OF the said county OF
Lyon, commence and conduct to success
fuI termination legal proceedings against
the Missouri, Kansas a. Texas railway
company, in the nature Of 4 stock holders
suit 10 Investigate the affairs Of said COM
pdny, and compel it 10 shoe ,oltG. has be-
come Of its franchises and the proceeds Of
its capital stock"
II might be possible for them to do all
this, and yet Lyon county not be benefit
ted single dollar by the investigation,
But having compelled the company 10
"show what has become OF its franchises
and the proceeds OF its capital stock"
ltnggles 4 Plumb Will be entitled 10 their
fee Of 33I< per cent. of the capital stock.
The fee IS payable out Of a5hdt The coun-
~ already has, and not out Of tohGt &c
might gain by the Ldtcsuit. Had Ruggles
Il Piumb's fee been percentage, OF the
amount of benefit which Lyon county
would receive by reason OF the legal in
Vestigation, rs for instance, Increase of
stock OF rise in value OF stock, then 1t
might be said that their fee was depend
ant upon their success. But that Is not
the case. They are entitled 10 their fee
t0hether the Investigation terminates TO
she benefit Of Lyon county or not; all they
have TO do is 10 compel the ~, IL. d. I.
IL. IL. Co. TO ShOlo Schdt has become Of
its franchises aud the proceeds Of its cap
itdL stock. When this is done they are
entitled TO their fee. Aud all this Lyon
county Is entitled To matter OF right,
being stakeholder in the railroad COM
pany. Lyon county Is n stock holder and
stands upon the same footing as any 9TH
er stakeholder. All she has to do is to
file her petition in court Of equity for an
investigation Of the books, and Of the
acts OF the officers OF the X. K. Co.. and this
she is entitled to as u matter OF right.
When this is done, anu the action tried,
whether she is benefited by the investi-
CATION or not, Kuggles & Plumb will have
performed their part of the contract aud
will be entitled to their fee OF SOC, 6G0 SO |
OF capital stock In the NJ, X. Il T. II. Il. |
Co.
Cannot IL be seen that the contract is |
q One-sided one and was drawn with the |
evident intention Of eating hold Of the |
$G6.G06.G6 OF stock at all eUeRts, and |
tohether the iiIUestigGtiOn a7as Of any ben
sft 20 Lyon county or not"
Fit became nects to commence the |
suit for which the contract was made, |
then 1t was the duty of the County Attor-
ney TO have commenced the action with
out any additional expense to the county |
than his salary. But in this instance the
County Attorney was never consulted as
to the rights OF the county or as to the |
nature OF the contract which the Board |
made with RuggleS d Plumb, and never |
knew OF the contract or intention to COM
mence the action at all until the petition
was presented to him for his signature as
County Attorney, several months after
the date OF the contract
Is not every citizen interested in that
er OF taxable property in Lyon county /
has an interest in the 100000 OF stock in |
the NJ, *. d 4. II. Il. Co, which Lyon
county owns. An attempt is made under |
this contract, which is absolutely void,
las every attorney OF recognized standing |
anywhere will admit) to take from the
assets OF Lyon county S66, 666.66 Of this
stock. Should not every citizen throw
all the obstacles he eau in the way of the
county being swindled by the delivery OF
that stock? The contract was made in 4
March, 1871; the action was commenced |
Il short time after, and yet the action Is
still pending undetermined in the District |
Court Of Lyon county, the action being |
continued from term to term by consent |
Of the attorneys. The action, ifever tired, |
will probably be determined within the |
next two years, and then will come the |
question as to whether Ruggles Il Plumb |
will be entitled to their fee or not. What
position the county might be placed in
with Ruggics, one OF the parties to the
contract, as the legal ddUiSeT Of The Board
Of County Commissioners. Suppose OH
their demand the Board should refuse { as
they ought TO beyond all question: To
transfer the stock, and Ruggles Il Plumb
should sue the county, who would de-
fcnd? Mr.. Ruggles. Hardly, for he
would be one of the plaintiffs. What
then? The county would be compelled
to employ another attorney at an expense
or from $500 to 81 900.
1t behooves the citizens OF Lyon county,
then, 20 treat the matter OF County Attor-
ney for the next two years in a business
like tody. Put themselves in Lyon coun-
ty's place, would they employ MIR. Rug
giles for the next two years, under the
circumstances? We think no sensible
business man would. CAUTION.