The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-02-01
me LONG ISLAND RAILROAD sur.
Can the Directors of the Long Island ROnd
be Restrained from Resicuina.

Can the Directors of the Long Island Il on d
be Restrained from Reslcniug.
The argument for an injunction in the
suit nf William F. Buckley against Henry Have
meyer, President Of the Long Island Railroad
Company, and John G. Havemeyer, Mm. Dewd,
william ii. Macy. George w. Lane, Robert l..
Cuttinn< Abram 5. hewitt, Charles Camblos,
William Kewen, william A. Havemeyer, and
John E. Parsons. restraining them from turning
over the control Of the road TO the owners Of
the two rival Long Island roads, the Flushing,
North Shore and Central, and the Southern. and
to restrain any OF the directors from rosigDiuR,
was concluded yesterday before Judge Barre It.
MIR. Luther II. Marsh appeared for the mo ton,
and Messrs. James c. Carter and Elihu Root in
exposition.
Mir. Marsh charged upon the defendants a
scheme 10 transfer the man gemeDt of tue rail-
road from the Long Island Railroad corpora ion
to two com peting roads. which IL WAS said were
really under one manage ment, so that they
Would prscte ally have cOmp lete control of the
railroad husiness OF the Island. 1t was said that
the mode In which treV intended to accomplish
this was u sell out their stock and let new par-
tics IN, thus changing the direct orsbp from that
which the stockholders aclected In Apri last TO
one which the directors put In. without regard
would be RUINED IN the interest OF
the managers OF competing roads. He claimed
that the defendants had no right to do this. As
tn the Temporary Injunction which had teen on
trned against the Havcmcyers, modtnc ton
7
stock, aud II appeared that that stock had Doe n
sold.
Mr.. Clrter-what do YOU move for7
Mr.. Marsh--We move for an Injunction against
the director-, namely. the parties served, that
they shalt not dc anything TO effect this transfer
nv resignation ~ the once NJ directorship
create a vacancy for the purpose OF being hlled
UV The parties against whom this lnJunouun IL
pending. The Injunction Is also 10 prevent
them from doing anything TO eonsummate this
Judge Barrett-You must point out some spe-
cine act they are about 70 do, and which they
Mr. Harsh-Any act, such a. the act OF resigna-
Judge Barrett-wen, the Injunction must DO
to restrain some Illegal or improper act.
Mr. NArsh-It Is illegal 10 transfer the control
OF the railroad 10 the other companies how they
nj. Is violation Of duty this change ~ Iender-
ship from ono which the stockholders ap-
pointed and which the trustees agreed 70 take.
stockholders NIL their places?
Mr. ~ar-h-rhe ordinary practice, " man
resign, Is for the directors to I'LL hts place Sup
pos John q. Hhvemeyer resigns. and they au-
point Poppenhusen OF the other company in his
placer
MIR. Carter read sfidavits OF ]. c. and Henry
Hnvemeyer denving that the directors were ap-
voted or them, or that they entered into any
agreement IA to their conduct directors
They allego tnat they own hut 400 shares Of
stock. auu have an interest IN O,6A shares held
hy their father. A proposition had been III ID .
for the purchase Of a large amount of the stock,
~ the price on red they Acquiesced. The rams
fer ~ the control, To theil knowledge, was no
pArt OF the agreement.
The anidavits of Messrs. Dowd, Macy, and
Lane were read to the same effect
Mr. Marsh ch arac ,er1sd the afldaylts a. eva
siVe. Ho read all affidavit of Henry Have
meyer. : wing ne knew the transfer was 10 be
made to parues interested in other railroads.
Mr. sarter-Ih INDUCTION Is simply TO restrain
detrudanis from taxing any action which will
result In the transfer Of their road to the other
roads named rnat Is very vague The sale of
tue stock has already been made, and now they
only SIX an injunction against the directors re-
signing for the purpose of letting In PERSONS in
the interests of other roads; so that II IL a mo-
tive which they Wish to enjoin. There Is no law
whatever 10 prevent director OF a corpora
tiun resigninR whenever he chooses to do 30.
Judge Blrrett-Inere can be no doubt of
tn {.
Mr.. Carter argued that the allegation OF posi-
bic Injury TO any Of the stockholders was
wholly unsustained
Decision reserved.