New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-12-24
RAILROAD INTERESTS.
NO RELIEF For MR. CONTENT.


DECISION OF THE GENERAL TERM OF THE s'Fi'f 'H
COURT TOUCHING THE UNION OF THE ELEVATED
COMPANIES.
The General Term of the Supreme Court
rendered Yesterday a decision the application "i
Noah Content for mandamus to compel the Metropoh-
tan Elevated Railway to issue 10 him ccrcaes or oV'
shares OF stock with the guaranty by the hana'
tan Company OF 10 per cent yearly dividend winch n
certificates surrendered by him contained II Il h,u
that Mr. Content is not entitled to the r'ueI Soupu' ~
him. and that Justice Lswrences decision In Chambers
must bc affirmed Justice Daniels wrote the opinon IN
which Justices Brady and Davis concur The following
is the substance Of the opinion:
Tho validity of the lease of May 20, 1879 OF the prop
erty of the Metropolitan Company to the hAnhat'Ah
Company haS been drawn in question IN THIS case
and the lease Will therefore be assumed legal and valid
The lease guaranteed annual dividend OF lOPef cent
on the capital stock Of tine Metropolitan Company that
a ruarauty I'm proper form by the Manhattan Company
should be executed upon the certificates Of stock OF the
Metropolitan Company and that such guaranty Sh"uu
bc renewed upon the reissue Of certificates az TIE request
o IN, owner By the agreement II october 22, l-sl,
the Manhattan Company was released by the heuo-
polran Company from its obligation to pay to the later
company greater yearly than would amount 10 Il
dividend of instead OF 10 per cent on ia capital Sock
The Metropolitan Company, III relt ling ccrtlhcatea OF
stock to Mr. Content in exchange for those surrendered
by him, refused TO continue upon the certhca'es INC
guaranty 10 per cent dividend by tue MhHhattan
Cnu,pay and Mr. Content declined 20 accept the GER
thcates without such guaranty In support OF his ght
10 certificates with guaranty Of 10 per cent reliance
has been placed upon the principle that whore one per
son makes "a promise 10 another Tor the bcneht oi
third the last person entitled to nOrcc such promise
But TIN. principle applies only when the promise Il 10
he pcr.ormcd directly VITA the tAr person intended 10
be benefited uy n. Justice Daniels cities auu rtNlc"a
| many cases in support OF this proposition. .
IN, contract IN the original lease, upon which Mt
Content bases his application, was made exclusively p'
tween the corporations Themselves, hHd not Win an!
prr-uu owning stock n the Metropolitan Company. i'c
1iarauy upun the certificates of stock OF the Metro
pOlItau Company merely statement oi tH' I"'t
of such guaranty between the TWO contracting cor
/ poratious fl IN no way enlarged the obligations Oi
either fhe riLts of the owner ni the Stock
The money uc paid by the Manhattan Company &" tAt
Mrtropoiitau Company would, Notwithstanding tht
guaranty. paid the company tsef aud constitute
fund I'M hands, out Of winch 10 make ilt NNuruu
utou It's stock IN, stockholders Of the Mci-upo,tat
tomuauy mad rights against ihc Manhattan Com
pany aud could Ia no form maintain 900 arIl'h "-uu7
recover Tor auu-IaFlH.h, ul dlFlthds
by the Metropolitan Company on the EIuuHd tati 90 .ut
Manhattan Company had not paid over The money uIt
under the lease The statement. on tho i'cr oi in' Ger
tucatcr of tuc Metropolitan Company were lu ~" -"n-
contracts but at most notice %. the conulloh oI ih'
property III the com iuy ami ui TIE rouTceH IRON VII.
il expected " dcry, The means ui paying ItH dividends
Az tho contract wholly between tine corporations
the, could modify and change 10 ~ "lrcunstaucr- ~'uhI
seen, To- render necessary or r1pcudcut Iuc bf''''i-
oI thr rompauirs making the compromise agr~"tnru
% l--l, did NOT exceed their proper f-
Mr. Content - nor merely denied the parncuar r"iu ~
ty maudsIu sought 10y him, but bio c.s' FANS urc'ao
b na- en- abolished no legal or equitable uBHt "hatc',l
10 any relief whatever.