Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1875-09-13
The Washington Market Compar
THE SUITS OF THE COMPANY |
SHAREHOLDERS. "AANsr

go tp,,tyyar NJ Imam ct al. was called
ana t Mr. w, w, e: Chandler for the company,
sl'u Mr' Eilop. with Mr.. Merriek) for the
~ std :. NJ case now comes up on a motion
.ne Payr .Ient OF rents pendrrte lue and secu-
case as follows:
The company, owning a market-buildipg
nth stalls and stands therein, sold the rights
10 occupy the same for two years from July
i, 1s72, at public auction, realizing $4,000
therefor; and the defendants, over two hun
dIed In number, severally and separately
purchased and entered into occupancy OF
large number OF the stalls end stands which
they stun retain. Towards the close OF the
Two years term, the company prepared and
advertised 10 sell sll rights to occupy its
stalls ard stands at auction, for q further
Term OF three years. This proposed sale the
defendants, combining for that purpose, have
prevented by their injunctions in the orig
mai bill, wherein they claim a perpetual
right of occupancy; AMI have already de-
layed such sale for more than one year, with
tue ceI tainty of further delay for at lie lst
another year, and possibly more. In case
the fir al decision shall De against the deal
ers' claim, the original bill will be dismissed,
and the company can proceed with the sale
for another Term OF years. But ii cannot sell
at auction the right TO occupy during past
two, or more years, during which the sale
has been wrOnsfully prevented by tie
defendants. Its only remedy for it's in
turies and losses during this period must
be directly against the defendants. 1t
may collect from them by action at Law,
as damages, the value OF the use aid occ
patton OF the stalls which they are bound in
apy event 10 pay, and which may be apprO-
priately measured by tine previously pal
and interest thereon. But how, i'll a;seSsing
damages, shall it be deter mined what the
rights 10 occupy, paying rent, would have
brought at auction. If the sale had not been
wrongfully delay~t and prevent 4 by the de-
PENDANTS? They can only be well determined
by court in equity, by that court which
has all the case before it; and for the fixing
and collecting of these uncertain damages,
as well as for the collection of compensation
for use and occupation, the court will retain
the original bill and will allow the company
10 maintain its cross-blll. In other words,
the dealers claim a perpetual right to
occupy, paying rent; and have prevented
since July 1, 1914, and still prevent, the com
pany from repOssesSing itself of its stalls or
selling at auction the rights to occupy.
If their claim is not wei founded, but their
terms legally ended July 1, 1874, they are
bound TO pay for their Use and occupation
since July /, 1874. such sin as may be de-
termined, TO pay as further damages for
HrCngfully remaining in possession after
July 1, 1874, and for their false and wrongful
suit, at least whatever loss the company
may have sustained by the prevention and
ceiay after that date OF the sale OF the rights
Both these obligations the company is en-
Titled 10 have enforced by this court on cross
bill. because the dealers have sought equity
and being now in court on their own motion
must do equity, and decree 10 this e Feet is
necessary TO full relief, and an equitable de-
termination OF all the rights of the parties
Low actually before the court concerning
this subject matter.
The amounts for rent up to July 1, 1873, is
S3,1z1.I2, and for use and occupation between
that date and July /, 1915, at the same rate,
$50 ,63I.21. The dealers claim, under the sec
ond section of the act of May 20, 1870, that
Their purchases at auction for two years were
purchases forever; that they have the right
under them TO remain in possession of their
stalls a. long as they choose, paying the rent
therefor, ard they have brought their bill in
equity only for perpetual Injunction upon
the company against re-seliing the stalls
after the two year term. In their bill they
admit their obligation 10 pay the rent for
their stalls, and only deny the company's
right 10 resell the rights TO occupy. The
company claim the right 10 resell after the
two year term, and that the dealers have no
right TO occupy after July 1, 1874, except upon
re- purchase at auction for another term,
If the controverted point is determined in
favor of the company, it will have the right
~ to resell for another term, (2) 10 compen-
sation for use and occupancy during the liti-
Chiffon, and until the dealers vacate or re-
purchase their stalls, and also (3) TO damages
by reason OF the stoppage and delay of sale
by the lawsuits OF the combined dealers.
If the controversy is settled in favor of the
dealers, they will be entitled, (D to remain in
EoSs1on without any resale at auction by
the company, but ~ they Will owe, and will
be under obligation, as they now are, to pay
rental during all their occupancy.
The cross-b bill charges that many of the
are irresponsible, and that IL iS
only possible to collect the rents from them
by requiring them TO pay, either quarterly
or monthly, in advance; and that long de-
Jay IN eolecting VIII surely result in large
losses OF rentals and irreparable damage TO
the plaintiff"
Ii needs nothing beyond admitted or appa-
rent facts to satisfy the court of the truth OF
this aveIment. Here is q large public mar
ket with several hundred dealers, class of
men Industrious, frugal, il may be, DESTROYS,
pc haps, of fulfilling their legal obligations,
f.Nrrf tall Ia
accumulated capital, or visible wealth
aga ust whom IL is unsafe for the market
company 10 allow large Indebtedness for
rent of stalls TO accumulate. Necessarily the
safety and security of the rentals depend
upon their prompt collections; and delay i'm
making collections for one, two or more years
which must either be suffered by the market
company, or made up by the collection OF
larger rents from those dealers who are able
or can be made to pay.
The only conceivable objection deserving
the serious consideration of the court, that
can be made by the dealers to payment
during the litigation OF compensation for the
use and occupation of the stalls, measured
by the rental fixed by the market company
and the governor of the District, is that such
rental was not legally fixed without the con-
Gu renee of the mayor and common council
of the city of Washington, and is not there
fore proper measure OF compensation. To
this we reply:
(D AS matter of law, as stated in the ans
IL
the requirement of the original charter, that
the rent should be fixed by the mayor and
common council of Washington and the di-
rectOrs of the market company, was neces-
Sarlly amended by the act OF Congress, which
abolished the mayor and common council of
Washington without designating any person
or persons 10 perform their functions In con-
nection with the flying Of these rents, and
therefore the directors of the company could
alone fix the rents; and at all events the
concurrence of the governor of the District
was sufficient partic. patton, and the only
practicable participation of the Washington
authorities.
(2.) AS matter OF fact, the rents having
been fixed by the directors of the company
and the governor Of the District, and the
amounts thus fixed and the manner of fixing
them having been communicated TO the
dealers, parties TO this litigation, and they
having purchased and accepted stalls at
those rents, and having occupied and paid
rents for nearly or quite two years, are es-
topped from now Directing TO the same.
t3l There can be no reasonable suggestion
that the rents are unreasonably high, as is
apparent from the fact that after the rents
were fixed the rights TO occupy for two years
at these rents sold at public auction for
about 1000, and that the whole present
controversy between the company and ,he
dealers arose because the company claimed
the right to resell the rights 10 occupy the
NJ md nj a IN hnn