The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-07-09
THE ERIE RAILROAD.

The General Term OF the Supreme Court, Judges
Davis Daniels and Donohue presiding, rendered
seven decisions yesterday afternoon.
In the suit brought by the Erie Railway Com
pany VS.. Corn elus Vanderbilt, the facss or which
have been already fully reported, the Supreme
Court, General Term. gave decision yesterday
reversing the Judgment of the lower court,
and ordering a new trial. Judge Denonue writes
the prevailing opinion, Judge Lawrence concur
ring, and the dissenting opinion was written by
Judge Daniels. The complaint sets out In sub
stance that in 1868 several suits were brought
against the Erie Railway Company fer matters al
legged to be frauds on the company and Its stock
holders, that Mr. Vanderbilt was not nominally q
party to those suits and denied any interest in
them that the complaint In the present suit al
leges the settlement OF those suits ano payment
OF money by the company to Mr.. Vanderbilt by
which the company was deIrauded and That the
ara asked that the money ana securities be re-
turned to the company. The answer substantially
denies the connection OF MI Fanaerbllt WIN
or tie compromises or payments The substance
or fact Of the allegations ana denial Is that the
railway company contends, and Mr.. Vanderbilt
denies, that certain suits brought at the time 10
compel the performances OF justice by certain de-
faaltng o1cers 70 the compsny was settled ~
money from Ine alleged defaulters, but setting
with them by taking more money out OF the COM
which said ofncers had Obtained an advantage
over Mr.. Vanderbilt and his friends.
In his opinion Judge Donohue states that Daniel
Drew and others we're IN the centred OF the Erie
Company as trustees; that Vanderbilt had given
an unlimited order 10 buy that stock that one OF
the directors Of the company, taxing advantage
OF a clause IN the charter OF the company, pro-
cured the issue OF bonds, which were converted
into stock and used In filing contracts
for stock sold to Mr.. Vanderbilt Judge
Donohue says that Mr. Vanderbilt cannot
contend that such issue was valid; that
ie and those acting WITH him, hnding that
the contracts which they had hoped by taking
stock in to control the road were being filled by
stock thus issued, obtained an I'M unctlon against
suon issue, asked for relief against the ii ustees
and an accounting TO him. After dwelling at
length upon the previous suits and abiding 70 the
oints raised by counsel, ne holds that the facts
40 not present in law such case ~ will entitle
the company TO redress, and he then discusses the
question o; what right mas a corporation been de-
irauded by the joint acts OF trustees and q third
party. bis ihal conclusion Is That the evidence
clearly shows that the suit for the settlement or
which the money was paid was settled Ia fraud Of
the companys rights and with their 1unds; that
Justice requires the refunding OF the same and
that the findings on the facts In the court below
are erroneous. He therefore directs reversal Of
the judgment and a new trial.
Jud &c Daniels, In his dissenting opinion, arrives
at an entirely different conclusion, and declares
that, under the mos5davorable opinion that can
be taken OF the facts, the judgment below Is cor
rpra