Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1882-06-23
The Bill.

The Bill.
R. D. Assn the Chancery Court of Shelby
County Tenn-C c. Graham Ct al IS The Mem
pills. Selma and Brunswick Railroad Company.
The separate answer of Fred Wolfe to so
20 nch and such parts of the bill of complaint
in the above entitled cause as he Is advised
it is material fer him to answer. This re-
spondent answering, states that some time
prior to the 18th day of June, 1881, he and
his associates contemplated the policy OF
securing a through line of railroad from the
city of Memphis, in the State of Tennessee,
10 Brunawick in the State of Georgia; and
to this end the acquisition of the rights,
privileges and franchises of the Selma, Ma
Tion and Memphis Railroad Company and
its successor, the Memphis, Holly Springs
and Selma Railroad Company was being dis
cussed. On or about the 18th day of June,
1881, respondent made the acquaintance of
defendant w. NJ. Forrest, who came on to
New York on business connected with the
Vicksburg and Shreveport Railroad Com
pany, and respondent then learned from him
for the first time that he was interested In
the Memphis, Holly Springs and Selma Rail-
road Company. This led to negotiations be-
tween said Forrest and this respondent on
behalf of himself and associates which re-
suited in a proposition on the part OF re-
spondent to the effect that if said Forrest
would deliver 10 him the bonds of the Selma,
Marion and Memphis Railroad Company,
together with the corresponding stoC k, and
with all rights, privileges and lands and in
terest in the same OF the Memphis, Holly
Springs and Selma Railroad Company, he
would cause to be issued to said Forrest Ger
tifcates for two hundred and sixty-three
1851 bonds OF $1,000 each in the new COM
pauy which respondent and his associates
proposed to organize, the said bonds to be
delivered when the new company was organ
lied and its bonds issued. Said Forrest
acceded to this proposition, conditioned upon
his ability to get up the bonds and stock, and
left New York for Memphis to see what
he could accomplish. On his return he in
formed respondent that ne bought the stock
and bonds, but that he was under the neces-
sity of borrowing a considerable sum OF
money in order to pay for part OF stock and
bonds purchased from other parties. Finally
respondent agreed to loan said Forrest the
sum of $4,000, which was afterward in
creased to S35 900, on condition that said
Forrest would, on the delivery of the bonds
and stock, hypothecate with him the certif.
Gates as aforesaid calling for the new bonds,
as a collateral security Tor the payment OF
his note given for the money SO loaned 10
him.
Respondent is informed and believes that
defendant J. J. Busby, on or about the 9Th
day OF July, 1881, arrived in New York for
the purpose of delivering the aforesaid stock
and bonds TO said Forrest. Respondent adj
mits that defendant Forrest did, soon after
the arrival OF said Busby, deliver to him
said stock and bonds, including that which
he had purch ased from complainants, in full
fllment of his contract with respondent.
Respondent further answering states that he
gave, or caused to be given. to said Forrest a
check for said sum Of $4,000, so loaned
him, and said Forrest, in the>pressnce of re-
spondent, Endorsed aud delivered the same to
defendant Busby. He took the individual
note of said Forrest for said loan, payable at
twelve months, and has held, and continues to
hold, for the security of said note, the afore-
said certificate for the delivery of the bonds
of the new company. Respondent now
states that he never knew defendant j. j.
Busby in this transaction, other than as the
representative of the stockholders for the
sale and delivery of their stnck, till
he arrived in New York. Respondent dealt
solely with said Forrest, and the negotiations
and the trade were exclusively between said
Forrest and himself, and said Busby was not
a party thereto, either directly or indirectly,
so far IS respondents knowledge, informa-
ton or belief extends.
Respondent requested said Busby 10 go on
the note.of,.said Forrest, given for the loan of
S35, 900 as aforesaid, and this he refused to
do, and at the time gave as reason for his re-
fusal that he had no interest whatever in
About the 1st of August, 1881, respondent
went to Memphis for the purpose of organic
ing the Memphis, Selma and Brunswick Rail-
road Company and was then informed bv de-
PENDANT. j. j. Busby, for the first time. that
after his return from New York to Memphis,
and within a very few days, he had pur-
chased from defendant (Forrest) an interest
in said certificates And this is the first time
respondent learned or heard of him having
10 haf Anor
| tificstes, which respondent contracted to give
said Forrest in exchange for said stock In the
| Memphis, Holly Springs and Selma Railroad
| Company, were worth at that time par OF
| nearly par. The Memphis, Selma and Bruins
wick Railroad Company was not then incor-
| porated, and the success of the enterprise wa:
not then assured. Having now answered sc
much OF the bill as he is advised it is mate
| rial for him to answer, he prays to be dis
missed hence with his reasonable costs in
this behalf expended.
President NJ, s. and B. r. Z. Co.
We certify that the above is true copy
| of the original.
W. G. PATTERSON,
WIN. P. ECELtS.
State of New York, city and county of New
York,-ss.
Personally appeared before me Edwin F,
Casey, jr., a commissioner OF the State OF
Tennessee, appointed, qualified and commits
stoned TO take probate Of deeds, sfidavits,
etc., for registration and use in the State OF
Tennessee, Fred Wolfe, and made oath that
the foregoing answer is true, to the best OF
his knowledge, inform alton and belief
In witness whereof L nave hereunto set my
hand and affixed my official seal the day and
year first aforesaid.
EDWIN F. CASEY, JR.,
Commissioner for State of Tennessee.
Office 81 Wall street, New York.