The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1875-12-22
An Important Railroad Suit.

The United States District Court at St..
Paul was engaged last week in hearing the
case of the Green Bay and Minnesota
Railroad against Thomas Simpson. The
complaint alleges in brief that the plain.
TIL, a corporation created and organized
under the laws and empowered to build
railroad, had in March, 1873, built and
equipped railroad from Green Bay to
Merrillon Station in jackson county,
Wisconsin, and also contemplated the
further extension of its line to the east
bank of the Mississippi river; that dc.
PENDANT, among others, for the purpose
of inducing plaintiff to build the road to
a point opposite Winona, executed and
delivered to plaintiff contract in writ
ing or subscription. whereby he agreed to
take a certain amount of the stock Of
plaintiff at its par value.
The complaint sets out at length the
contract and then alleges Its full per-
Torrance by plaintiff, but that the de.
PENDANT refuses to pay his subscription or
to take the stock Of the road though
plaintiff has ever been ready to give the
same. The complaint closes by demand
ing judgment for the amount subscribed
with interest from January LIST. 1874.
The defendants answer admits the
signing of the contract or subscription
paper for the amount named, and the
building Of the road within the manner
and period stated, but bosses his refusal
to comply Herewith on the ground that
the stock in question had no market
value; that the plaintiff was guilty
Of fraud in giving out that unless
the citizens of Winona extended
certain aid, the road would be built
to La Crosse when it had already been
finally located to run to Winona, and
would have been so built if no subscrip.
ton had been given by citizens of Vino.
ma; that the said city had no right to is
sue said bonds for said purpose, but that
the city had resolved to procure the ne.
cessary legislation to enable it to issue
bonds to reimburse said subscribers; tia
defendant, relying upon being so REIN.
bursed, had signed said subscription pa.
per; that this was fully understood by the
plaintiff; that plaintiff declined receiving
the $35, 900 raised by subscription, and
demanded $4,000: that thereafter, with
out defendants knowledge, the
plaintiff procured the passage
by the City Council of a resolution de-
signed to procure the necessary legislative
authority to issue bonds to tho amount
of $4,000; that pursuant thereto appli-
cation was made to the Legislature and
the necessary steps granted by that body
to submit the proposition to vote of the
people that the question was duly sub.
mitted; that large majority Of the
voters were willing to vote the sum Of
$35 1000 to reimburse the subscribers to
said paper, and said vote would have
been carried if said sum had been accept
ed by plaintiff, but that said proposition
was defeated by reason Of the plaintiff S
demanding the additional $4,000, and
the subscribers thereby defrauded of
their indemnity, and closes by charging
that the whole transaction was a fraudu:
lent arrangement among the officers Of
the road to divide said sum among them
selves and not to apply the same to the
building of the road or for the benefit Of
the stockholders.