The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-03-30
Right to Grant Such Lease
Questioned and Argued.
More of the Mysteries and Miseries
of Wall Street.
PROGRESS OF THE BLACK FRIDAY SUIT.
The Land Where SapphO
Loved and Sung.

Several hours consumed yesterday in supreme
Court, Chambers, before Judge Donohue, In arguing
the proposition made by the Twentyhrd Street Rail
road Company to lease the Blocker street railroad for
90 years The conditions upon which IL is proposed to
make the lease as forth the petition of the former
company have already been published in the HERALD.
AS on previous occasions when the tgaons in which
The Blocker street railroad is involved subjects
Of judicial adjudication there large crowd pres
emit and tho usual formidable array Of counsel repre-
senting the various parties in interest
The proceedings were opened by Mr. Henry A. Root
asking for an adjournment OF the matter on behalf OF
Messrs E. N. II w. Ward, who as executors OF Ester
W. Ward, holders OF 100 shares of the Blocker
street railroad stock, but had received notice of the
proposed lease. Having just been retained in the
case, he said he desired time to look into
the matter. Judge Donohue stated that he should
have opportunity for a full hearing and that no
order would be entered in the until all the stock
holders had an opportunity to be heard through
counsel This assurance being satisfactory to Mr.
Root Mr.. Scrbner, representing the Blocker Street
Railroad Company, opened the argument support
the proposed lease He urged that the lease should be
contaminated by the Court, that it was pettoncd for
by majority of the stockholders and that all the
bondhoders who could be discovered were in favor OF
he lease. He contended further that the legal right
10 execute such leases was unquesiioned and
pressy provided Tor by statute. Mr.. Miller, as the
counsel of Mr. Harlome trustee in the suit foreclose
he mortgage OF the Blocker road read brief
lfidavit of his client, after which he commented at
tome length upon the case, and concluded
by asking that no order OF the Court be
made interfering with the special litigation
OF his suit. Mr. Edward Patterson, for the plaintiff
sistare followed with lengthy argument The first
question that arose he said whether the Blocker
street Company has right In law to make the con-
emplaed lease 1t could not, he urged be contended
by opposing counsel that any such right exists
mon law pertains to the ordinary business OF rail
way corporation lease Of franchises and
property would not only be void, but would be tanta
mount 10 a surrender OF the charter. This had been
held both in England and here. No authority is given
by the general railroad law and If it exists all 1t
must be because OF the special legislation of 1878 or
1875 or boh respecting this very Blocker Street Com
pany 1t does not so exist, however because the act
Of 1873 far as 1t refers leasing clearly void as
mere inspection will show. 1t conflicts with section
IT, article 3, of the State constitution. The act or
1875, which purpors TO amend the void act of 1874
is palpabe nuhty, and violates the constitution IN
the respect The act of association of 1860 under
which this road was originally constructed, gives
authority, for that ceased apply when in 1864
the road became Incorporated under the general law
The old act of 1889 did apply, refers merely
10 the use OF the road OF one corporation by another
company, as the Supreme Court had held In constituting
it, Mr. Patterson further argued that the acts OF 1873
and 1875 violated the article of the State constitution
which prohibits the Legislature passing depriving
persons of their property He considered the relations
of stockholders to the corporation and the statutory
and other provisions OF law the nature of the in
terest Of stakeholder in the and property of
the corporation He claimed that private prop
erty in such sense as that minority of stockholders
could not be deprived by a majority OF the beneficial
use OF it, and cited numerous authorities sustain his
view and also to show that the assets and property
and franchises were private property which the lease
proposed TO take for private against the construc
lion put by all the courts the constitutional
provision in that regard, citing the Albany street
railroad case and many others He also showed
that the constitution of the United States was VIC
lated that the charter or incorporation contract
with stockholders; that multitude OF cases from
the Dartmouth College case to quite recent decisions
held that the Legislature could not by any act en-.
graft upon charter disabilities qualifications
which did not attach stockholders sub
Ecribed 10 shares, and hence that minority could
not by law be coerced by majority OF stockholders
unless the law permitting il existed when the charter
was granted. He also showed from the papers that
ghere attempt to compel bondhoders to extend
their bonds Tor twenty years and to abandon the
$700.00 foreclosure suit 1t was evident tho
lease very preudcia TO the Blocker street road
and was in Its terms much more unfavorabe to the
Blocker street road than those offered to year ago
by the same proposed lessees.
Mr. Fowler, representing the Receiver followed with
few remarks relative to the of his client In
court, and also insisting that the leading parties in
negotiating this lease were not acting for the interest
succeeded by Mr. Bright counsel for the Twenty
ihird street road, whose speech mainly In refua-
on of the legal propositions presented by Patter-
son. He claimed that the road had right to make
tins lease under the act OF 1889 and cited opinion OF
Judge Grover In support OF this view He had not con-
cludcd his argument at the adjournment of the court
Ii arranged that the reconvene at halt past
nne this morning to hear the conclusion of his argu-
ment At the same time Judge Donohue said he would
hear Mr. Fowler in defence of the Receiver and Mr..
Root and others representing the stockholders.