New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-11-07


,h Mutral Union stock issued under the contract DO
reou,rea 10 nav TO the company the difference between
the smounta actually received by the company io N'
stock and the nominal par value OF the snare7
In the complaint the plaintiff says that he owns seven
+v.ave shares OF the stock. which ne mas 49,
for about year having purchasedthem'ln 'no =, ,h
10. rIa than reviews the history OF the lhcrca'e "
nv .on, ,o ssoo 600 to s1O,O0000o The history
,,,a contract between the company anu 'no
:, Iobn q Moore a Co Is next taken up vi 'n"' -
ba saws only John G. Moore aud Thomas u fuluy -
the svowed partners, but he alleges that Johu w. = -
George William Ballou. George f. Baker IN" % -,
and H. c. FahnestOck were In realty phr.he 90,
The provisions of the original contract OF Apr -, nc
nv winch the extension OF the lines was undertaken
b arm are summed up BY the terms OF that conlrso'
"a alleged the individual defendants agreed TO pay
o., on the Mutual Union bonds not exceeding q'oOo
per annum and 10 advance 10 tne CONF,
all the money necessary 10 pay 'io ~ oor,
expenses Of the corporation for three 1e",S ,,+rot
alteration was the sum of S140ooOoo payape ~ ,
Union bonds aud stock-about S4'ooo'oO Tnese
bonds and about $9O00oOO or more ia s'o ~ ,auo
hopds and shares were to be taken at tneir p' -
and were to be placed In tue "'su oo,o.
4r,stee 70 remain until sold by the oelehua -
nosing the firm of John G.. Moore q " 80 -
quite all Of the bonds and tustee for them
hoen ssued 10 such defendants or 10 $50 haen sold
ca ,he proceeds OF the sale Of such as M their own
have been paid over to these deieh""N'' -'-
account of the notifications o. ' of the
tract {s1lors and il is asserted that these 1nodilca
lions we're in fraud of the rights VI oue riieved
hoirers Of the company The defenuahts WIZ - "a
5om fnTt,er obligation to pay the interest uPSn quo
Mu ual Union bonds, and 10 pay the o,io, c OF
and from other obligations for the cons ~ the
Tie company's hnes Tue complaint alleges t no, oa
changing the contract was beyond tnS Pfnt n
who made IT, and was nun and VOlu Huu ~ md held
~ alleged also that the stock issued 10 a1G ro ot
bv the defendants bought IN goOu iatn a ~, sss
held by innocent persons VINO are ~ az. sor,s could
neu or contribution the shares, AS tne snaIes o
not be lawfully issued as fu1ly pa9-up slA or &C
the recent by the eorloratlOn % roinc the de
tual value eqoal to the par VS 1tSout having
PENDANTS who rst took these shATes for tnen
only small part OF their par value must MAKE up tne
aiterence Ihe claim that the defendants WIZ
Us directors otherwise, held nuclay 49, ~ inc
prJfits of the firm OF John g. Moore Co. anu 5uouu
now be required to account for those prodIs. .,,
Mr. Cameron mrther alleges that the eompenst'93n IN
received by the firm under the CONTRACT Was the
excess or the actual value - r',cetvet' nv tue
company that the benefit ana Value recei ~ ~
the property and services Delhg Ano"I ,o w.
defendants botn in their capacity as III ne
company the shares and tue bonds were Ssueu
aud received by them lrauduleh,l5. ma ao6 100
and that the issue OF SS,OOO'oOo -, .,
stock to the defendants was wholly or gun n.y..
members Of the firm constituting majority Oh Lae Gun
pany's Board OF Directors and co1IoHiHts me
ulaiutf or compel the defendants TO full thelr Con-
tracts and make restitution to the company u 'no
In demand Tor iud gment the plaintiff asks that the
notifications OF the original agreement between INC
Mutual Unlon and the firm OF John q. Moore Co.,
whereby the relieved Of any OF It's Obligations
TO tie company, be decreed 10 ne Hu4I
and void and fraud upon the corporalloh'
lie plaintiff the stockholders and the creditors ot Ine
company The comp alId also demands mat ne deIehu
ants including Carrie b. Evans us admins t
OF the late John o. Evans, account 10 we
company for their expenses aud pronts
ulOer the provisions Of the contract; thal carrie
r. Eyans as administrative and each 81 the delenuauts
WAC was participating In the pronts OF tne oOiy'
while John o. Evans was director or the cOihpduyt
nav over TO tae Mutual Union the amount
Of such profits received by such deienuAh';
The plaintiff also asks that the members oil thY nIm %
John o. Moore Co. required to iulh the oDIlSaEns
Of the contract with the company. Also tnat
me members of the firm tue hrst takers
of the capital stock of the COMPANY, lssued
under the terms OF the CONTRACT as luIy PAM
u AT par of their nominal value be required TO account
to the company a. to the "actual values by them
paid Tor or upon account Of SAID rndres' hnu
he re0llired to pay TO the company "a sum
Gent amount to make up the difference between tue
actual values received by the company aud the nominal
par value asked that the Mutual Union nc &c
CURED TO take necessary steps 10 enforce the Eu
II The plalntln ..- g.. .l,a
Edvurd Russell appears as the attorney ior the
pi,