New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-03-23
THE COURTS.
ERIE LITIGATION.


ONE PHASE OF THE GREAT SUIT AGAINST coMxo-
DoRE yANDERBILT-TAXHs ON ERIE BONDS nor.
ABROAD.
The suit of the Erie Railway Compao,
against Cornelius Vanderbilt was tried about seven 60
ago before Judge Barnard, and jud gment was given %
the defendant The suit brought recover Al ooo
000-cash and tho large. paid for stock Of the p
Railway Companyn order to the dscontinuanc.
OF the suits on account OF which tho Erie directory -
tired 20 Jersey City. The compromise arrangensn.
included lesser to others who had acted with Van
derblt at that time and the claim that this money
property OF the Erie Railway Company had been H.
legally paid over. The amount OF these payments va.
about IS 600 900 IN nominal value
for which he gave up large amount OF Erie Railway Com
pany stock An appeal was regularly taken and argued
before the General Term in August. ls7i In October
1879, tho Judgment reversed and a trial WA
ordered Judge Daniels giving the prevailing opinion
The order for this reversal not entered until Sept
1915 On March g. 1876 the defendant appealed TO ths
Court OF Appeals An application made yesterday
by W. ". mcfarland to the Supreme Court, General
Term for amendment OF the order Of reversal ThI,
order states that the reversas questions Of law
while according Judge Daniess opinion the reversal
both on the facts and the law The amendment de-
sired Ia that that shall appear It's Importance arises
from the rule OF the Court OF Appeals hear ques
tons Of fact in such unless the order states tina,
the reversal was on the facts.
Counsel for the plaintiff stated that be was not
in the drawing Of this order, and only discovered the
omission when he was preparing his brief. John K
Porter in said that the defendants counsel had az
first wished the order TO stand the plaintiffs counsel
desired it, and had given notice that effect After
months of consideration not perhaps by Mr Macfarland
but by Others OF the firm with which he was connected
the plaintiffs counsel had elected have the order in
this form, defendant waving his objection The defense
had taken six mOnthsthe case icing OF great magni
tude-tO decide whether 80 4 trial or 10 appeal
and having decided to appeal from the order stood
ought not 10 be compelled 10 meet an entirely
changed case especially after the chief witness had gone
to MS grave II was now he urged too late The court
reserved its decision W. Mlcfarland appeared for
the plaintiff; John X. Porter and william a. Beach FOR
the defendant.
judge Blaichford yesterday filed his decision in the
United States District Court in tie Of the Govern
ment against the Erie Railway Company, IN which a
Government TAX amounting to ABOUT 100000 was Claimed
for the years 1866 1867 1868, AID 1863 The suit was
brought under section % Of the act Of june 80 1854.
Prior to sept l. 1906 the Erie Company had issued and
sold coupon bonds dated Sept 1863 10 the amount Of
soGOOOO sterling me pnnfps Vas 2ay1,9e 10
being made payable AZ the office OF J. s. Morgan
issued and sold Of the same class Of bonds 100000
payable at The same place in the manner The rate
scmiannuay. The bonds were al sold directly 70 Tor.
cgn bankers and resod by them TO their customers
In Europe During the years ior which the Goyennent
claims the tax, the bonds and coupons Led aud
owned by NONRESIDENT aliens, with the execution OF
bonds to the amount OF &20OOO Owned by cZens OF Inc
United states re dinS abroad. The interest the
bonds % II Zen due, sent 10 J. =. Morgan Co, IA
one sum- and was paid their Office In LONDON. The
tccs paid by the company FROM sept J. leCO 70 sept
j. 1869 amounted to @lS60Oo, and the Government tax
on that sum would nave been IN inc aggfeea,e %y,5Vh
Deductng 32lO, the amount OF tax on tue 100000
held By United states citizens living IL Europe, both
parties agreed 10 sdbmt 70 the court the question
whether the company indebted to the United states
in the sum Of 5000. After citing numerous authorities
and decisions in analogous cases, Judge aiclUrd holds
that the Congress OF the United states can have no
greater power 10 tax persons or property not within no
Jurisdiction OF the United States than state mas 90 tax
persons and property within its jurislc ton BY tho
tax in question has taxed either NONRESIDENT aleu5 o.
their property out Of the jurisdiction OF The United
The Count holds that the Government IS NOT en-
titled to any tax and penalty the bonds Aed by non
resident aliens the right to the tax OF &2lO On inc
bonds ncd by citizens Of the United States 10 admitted