New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-12-28
LITIGATION OVER BONDS.
SUITS ABOUT TIE ATLANTIC AND GREAT WESTERN
MORTGAGES.

SUITS ABOUT Tut AiiANiIb AMI "isi-Ai "4~'AF|''
MORTGAGES.
.Judge Lawrence denied yesterday, in Supreme
Cont. Chambers a motion 20 dissolve the Injunction IN
inc .ut Of R.mach against Meyer and others. Tie It'll
ion rey ont Of efforts reconstruct the Atlantic aud
Great Western Railway Company The old mortgage on
that road has been fOrccOscd The next. known as the
Ohio mortgage matured In October, 1876 Between TWO
and three millions Of dollars OF me bonds ot thar mort
,ge are outstanding. There Is third mortgage known
a. the Taylor aud Duuphy mortgage, Tor aDoul sNH H
lion, OF dollars Prndng the foreclosure 0f thr earlier
nrtgat the holders ~ the Ohio mortgage bonds most
oi whom lived in Holland deposited their bonds WIFE
certain brokers IN Amstcrlam giving them large powers
by agreement made IN 1916 10 protect 'h.t Interests
The courts in Ohio the foreclosure Of the entire
mortgage held that the bondholdcr~ under the ONO
mortgages would not he emitted 10 theI pihslph uh
the maturity OF the mortgage ana me pant IT, as ven
resontatiyc OF number OF bondholtcis GAINED that
with that decision the powers OF the Amsterdam brokers
m Ter the agreement OF september 1876, ceased Those
brokers however, at the instance ot the boueIs oil me
TAYLOR and Dunphy mortgage Oonds, VINO desired re-
construction Of the company, entered lno an agreement
to give extension OF the ONO mortgage Ior iIrre
years, on certain terms taSorape To le p"NlDo,cIs
whom they represented, II the courts OF ONO, Ne"IOrh
and Pennsylvania should approve. Application was
made, Murphy. the trustee Oh the ONO NOR J"nS
i'm the appcaiOn the Ohio court ocohlrm the agree
and the court there, against We oi te
plaintiff, who claimed To represent @iuVooVo le "OhuS'
affirmed it. From that order IN appeal was l!k'h.
Tnc plaintiff BEGAN TINS SUIT 10 prevent lle trustee,
Murphy, and those acting WIN NM from carrying GU
the arrangement referred to- and obtained an lDhhch
from judge Brady 10 that Effect An apphcauO 20 the
Pennsylvania courts iautd 10 oDlalu uoul vi
the Arrangement, appeal was pending Ia ONO An
application Judge Daniels, IN this state 10 the same
nuruort WAS also refused An application was tnen made
Ia udgc Lawrence dissolve the injunction granted by
Judge Brady Judge Lawrence nolGs that the appici-
ton should be refused. first because JUICE Divi' mas
refused to confirm the arrangement, ana II not JUS
and fair to all parties, II ought not to DO conn med
Ii is clear that II tue trustee De alo"Su ~
carry out the arrangement, injustice VIII DO dOue 10
another class ~ bondhOlders Second, II Is yer! grave
question whether the agreement OF sep.eno9r SD IS
valid Tho weight OF the evidence faNOis the lo.i on
that that agreement does not remain m force bt II IL
il i'm force he il unable to under when OF is pro-
visions the power is given To extend the ume To- the
payment Of bonds. For these and other r. asohs ne
denies tho mot To dissolve tina injunction with COSTS
Batchford, seward, Gri,wold aud DaCD-ia appeaieu
for the plaintiff f. f. IL. Meyer and - k9e.heF 10. A. AZ
defrndant Meyer; Sterling aud Walden Tor o'h'I Ut
PENDANTS