The New York herald., 1879-02-11
MR.. SEWALL'S PETITION.

JUDGE sEDowICK RENDERS AN IMPORTANT DE-
ClsIoN-HE DRRINRs THE PETITIONERS
RIGHTS, BUT GIVES HIM NO RELIEy
Judge Sedgwick. OF the Superior Court, yesterday
rendered his decision IN the suit of Arthur L. Sewa
against President Brayton Ives and the New York
Stock Exchange. The action will be remembered,
was brought by Mr.. Sewall to secure his readmis-
sion to the Exchange. from which he expelled at
the time Of Bonner Co.'s failure-of which Arm he
was the junior member-and also to restrain the de-
PENDANTS from interfering with his free ingress to
and egress from the Exchange Building. The follow
ing is Judge Sedgwicks opinion:-
DECISION OF THE COURT.
As the New York Stock Exchange is composed Of
more than seven persons who are owners Of and
have interest in property In common, and who
would be liable to an action on account Of such own
ershp and interest. the present action by member
In relstion to his interest in that property prop
erly brought against the present defendant presi
dent Chap. 455, Laws Of 1851
It seems clear to me that article 20 of the con-
stituton of the defendant means that before q
member can be expelled he must be found guilty by
o vote Of two-thirds of the members Of tho commit
tee present. and that the attempted expulsion
was void. This Of itself does not give
cause Of action. The illegal not must have
some relation to right which the Law can protect.
1t must appear that an injunction to prevent the do
fendant acting upon the illegal expulsion will per-
init the plaintiff to enjoy sono substantial right
pablo Of present future actual enjoyment The
complaint charges that the defendant under the pre-
QCDflvcQ
the power to enter said building or mart 70 carry on
such business ~ no may have to carry on. and has
uniawfuly deprived him of his seat, which cost him
$4,000; has wrongfully and unlawfully deprived him
of the interest In such property the association
may own. and has wrongfuly and unlawfully de-
prved him OF all the rights and privileges incident
to such membership, which are very valuable to
plaintiff aud absolutely essential to the discharge Of
plaintiffs business as broker.
clude the plaintiff from the enjoyment OF any and
every privilege Of member. Of kind that would
claim that lie was properly expelled. One Of the
dofcnces that before the expulsion and by
OF the plaintiff becoming insolvent he became. by
bership, and had 20 ever remained The
say i Sn 81 evssy s .ns %
future advantage of membership, and until he
should settle with his oreditors and should apply for
then depend upon tho voto Of the committee COM
mittees to which application must be made. The
sion and thst he had not made settlement with his
lad the masns asns m.iins PaS1 cns rSerssors re-
the constitution apply % for s'0Sai1 seaa%ission
or to DC readmitted. mere lapse Of time will not
using the void espulsion would not enable him to
While present facts exist there ia no possibility Of
be possibility hereafter is incapable Of deterinins
tion. II mero possibility a. dsting uishcd
ton there Be doubt ss to the corrseness Of this
II rests upon--nrst. that suspended member had
Room" second. that after the attempted expulsion
and before had passed, thero was q sale of the
plaintiffs right Of membership. The first refers to
right that Of itself In not In the nature of property
has no pecuniary value, and an unlswful exclusion
from IL could bo adequately compensated by dam
ages The second was not an injury 70 the pisintiT
az from the nature Vf membership be could be fully
reinstatcd without setting the sale aside, and any
claim Of right to resale would be repugnsnt 70 The
foundation OF this action.
For the reason that the plaintiff has no substan-
tial right that would be protected by injunction the
complaint must be dismissed