New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-27
THE COURTS.
WESTERN UNION DIVIDENDS.


ARGUMENTS IN THE INJUNCTION TO RESTRAIN THE
PAYMENT OF THEM.
The argument on the motion to continue the
temporary injunction recently granted in favor Of William
s. Williams. restraining the Western Union Telegraph
Company and s directors from paying any dividend on
S3s 92G590 OF the company's stock alleged 20 have
been Illegally issued had yesterday in the Superior
Court Chambers, before Judge Armour. Robert seweH
appeared in support OF the motion He
read affidavit by John G Moore who says that he
had received through the mail check drawn by the
Western Union Company the National Bank OF Com
5000 the OF dividend due on his stock
January 5 according to the resolution OF the Board
OF Directors Of the company passed on December 10
With the check was a receipt in blank for the dividend
TO filed up by him Mr.. Moore declares that be Is In
formed and believes that similar checks and receipts
have been sent to all the stockholders Of the COMPANY
The check bore date December %, 1882 Josiah C. Rem
makes afdavs TO the facts those set out in Mt
MoOres affidavit
When Mr. seweu had made a statement OF the facts In
the case Wager swayne spoke for the defendants in OPP
position motion. He first read several ahidaVits
A. R. Brewer secretary OF the Western Union Company
in his affidavit said that the transfers OF STOCK OF the
books OF the company had been so numerous that II
would be impossible distinguish any longer between
the stock which had been cOnfessedy legally issued
and that which It is alleged had been Illegally Issued
General swayne then began his argument on the motion
He contended that intervention OF court OF equity
TO restrain the doing any could NOT be invoked I'M
less the plaintiff in good conscience was entitled to con-
sideraon and unless his right TO the relief demanded
was certain and could be granted without doing injury
and Injustice 10 other innocent parties In TINS case
Mr.. Williams had bought his stock for the purpose OF
bringing this suit.
Nj sewell-There is nothing in the papers to show
this.
General swavne replied that Mr. Williams
bad bought his stock for the pur-
pose OF bringing all the suits be-could, ana there-
fore he had bought It for the purpose OF bringing all ne
suits he FAR had brought and therefore ne nau
bought he stock for the purpose OF bringing this suit
Mr. Williams right the relief was uncertain and the
granting of il 10 him would result IN great loss and dam
acc 70 many innocent people on both these grounds,
therefore Mr. Will ms had no rights to the cOn-ldeIa'
cisIon Of the General Term Of the superior
Court the spc kr declared that the Court ad nor ne
that the So 100000 oi stock was Llcsa out ti'at II
illegally issued The stock itself valid, ana having
passed into the hands o innocent purchasers was ouu-
,,o princIe OF Ian. or equity which would authorize
court in RESTRAINING ne company rom p"SluS tian
II. The contract between inc 'Ht"c to,l5 bbn
comDanies, Ia the cnd II H ruouiu Dc
sef aside was binding on all the parres TO u
until the property or the Two cpupahe' IN 'd
turned II axiom OF law that t0htIicl co,,u
lion of tbe consideration. No restitution having yer
been made to the companies the STOCK Wcn hhu ueel
hot tock Jrr entitled 10 all IL accretiOns As to the
dividends on the new STOCK Issued tu lhe HClucI7 Oh
W0
at ~ si,- Them The holders the old Western Union
stock were II the stock issued 90 them 10 represent
:" oI The dividends which is intended 10 pay now on
both the old and the new stock Inc ohy p>iue o.yr
ton then which could be- urged as,lns, lH anu
having of dividend or the old ana new STOCK represent
ine the corporate property oil lne nes,ll non I
pany before the consolidation was pule! ecHh'c'l anu
without any real weight.
Aaron j. Nandorpocl followed General SwaEne ah,
also insisted tua the $4,000 600 OF new STOCK sst'
under the Consolidation agreement OF 1851 vas Sut
even under the decision OF me ooneI- dir g od
valid stock illegally issued The STOCK belhE ltRhl q"
course It was perfectly proper 10 MAJ ul1lIShU
on h. When. however dir ,dcnu mad beeu declared 10
became q debt agaiI ~ the company Wh"A could ne en-
forced by suit. The company IN regard To declared
dividend was a debtor and the ,A'chodels We're INC
creditors Now. 10 never heard Of that debtor
coud he restrained from paving his debts IN suit 70
which the creditors were not made parties. ,.r-
Mr.. Scwell said in rtpy that ~ was ap-uId 10 t3iA
aSout the SIS 900 600 stock as legal stock illegally
issued When any instrument vas put forth contrary 10
where superior equity interviewed ana made II nrcrs.
sarv TO hold that valid which but for thai equity would
he bcld invalid II any OF the shares OF new stock had
PASSED into the hands OF innocent prcI aser to7e puI
chasers undoubtedly entitled 10 protection on SOM
kind But that was another question. ihc director,
Of the western Union company hhG nleEtIil ls'ugu
stock and the cealty tainted the stock Itself and made
il uuty and void He eHntfIded that All Mliiill1
could not be denied the eAc ne AsAed On thS ground
that innocent purchasers OF the ILLEGALLY issued
would Ice injured by IT, me present aItItTy ' 1l
the company was rcmaiha1'. II IIIu -'i',u W
900 OF stock M spite of all the Efforts OF te court.
10 restrain H. and now " Ganc mo go'' az, iu iii
ts.lrd and II would Dee most gucVou- hardship 20 IN
uoccnt persons To- try 10 undo what we nave laWl n
done Mr. ~cWcll also referred 70 the ludcc,hcy OF
~ directors In attempting f0rc,tall the possible ac-
ton OF the court in restraining the pay mem VI ne ls
quarterly dividend - p ,,-,...,., ..,,,
ON ali the unpers and proceedings 10 have the nlHne-
ton dissolved by Judge Iruax restored VA ace2r'.nee
with the decision Of tue General Ierh' Declsoh vas
reserved in both cases.