New-York tribune., 1883-03-17
A DECISION IN THE OIL SUITS.

VICTORY FOR THE TIDEWATER PIPE LINE.
THE OLD BOARD OF MANAGERS TO REMAIN IN con-
TRoL-POINTs OF JUDGE cHURcH's OPINION.
MEADyILLE, Penn, March 16.-Judge Church
this morning read his decision In the case OF the Tide
water Pipe Line Company against sattered and Others
All the points raised in the case were decided in favor Of
the plaintiff The result is to in control OF the
Tldewater the old Board of Managers, namely: A W.
Perrin, b. ID. Benson, Franklin B. Gowen and James r.
Keene AS it rumored that the Standard Oil Com
pany back Of the Satered party this decision Is
defeat for that corporation confirms the control OF
the managers opposed to the Standard OIL Company.
The opinion states that the quo waranto act does not
furnish plaintiffs adequate remedy. II quo warranto,
the defendants the parties invoke that remedy
They the persons out Of possession and they must
get that possession II at ALL by orderly process OF
law The defendants have invoked the Chancery powers
Of the Court by bill filed against the PLAINTIFF and
therefore evidently have faith In their argument that
quo warranto is the proper remedy The Court then
turned attention to the election OF January 81 1883,
and said al am Of opinion that preparation
ought to have been made for the holding Of the
annual meeting at the. time appointed by the
rules and regulations and at the office OF the company
1t asking much to ask all members OF an assoca-
ton who may be scattered to the four corners or the
earth to be present at the annual meeting Notice should
be given each shareholder at the annual meeting and
strong showing to warrant court in setting aside an
election. In the present case If the parties holding tho
election had desired TO act In good faith, they might
with great prOprety nave postponed the meeting until
the attendance OF members could have been had. But II
a meeting to be held without notice and where only
q small number OF members were present 1t was OF the
highest Importance that it should be conducted accord
ing to tie strict letter of the law. This meeting was
held otherwise and continued protests were made, to
which no attention was paid The whole proceeding
farcical, fraudulent aud void The teers rejected
unlawfuy issued shares There Is no evidence OF that
"The Legislature wisely silent with regard to the
internal affairs or the association anu therefore, rIes
regulations proper. The Legislature dd not IN
That united partnership associations were 10 Dc
managed IN the same way as cOrpOfatlDns Cuhave Li
voting which permitted BY tue teers IN TINS case,
Is and t1a in the 0rgInization ana government
Of associations and should not receive any iavor Dy lu
putatOn. II In derOgatOn OF common ught ana tle
law upon the subject should be strictly construed AZ
should not DO embraced In any system OF sONeIHneh
unless found to be clearly and explicitly WITHIN the
law The theory may DC eaPaySI9g 70 t1g 81 ~ %
observer IL supposed TO De Tor the oenent Oh tne M
nOry, but will prove curse instead OF Denenl II II
be manipulated IN ths case, for the purpose OF
turning out the lnDOnty anu putting III tne
and by series OF frauds, receiving sealed Daots
which one but the teller knew and Kept seaed 70 inc
last moment"
The ruling was as follows: First, this Court has equ
able jurisdiction the parties and subject matter OF
ths suit second the planun COMPANY had LlsnI ~, 10
make proper ana reasonable ru eS ana regulations or
the Of the association and lts members ana
those IL did make were ana proper aud not n
violation Of the Constitution or laws or the Common
wealth, nor OF plDuc pOuCJ' "OOoluhS
rules the proceedings OF the annual meeting were lie
gal that tue telers Of the election were not lawIu
appointed; that their assuming 10 act as such mace
them de tnctO de e ofcers that they eoud
dd not mold any lawful election aud that ther
certificate right title upon tue recipients
thereof 10 act hereunder Fourth that one joint trustee
Of Che trust snares interest mad NO nght 70
act or vote III the absence OF his company
such q vote was an illegal one. Fifth, that the
powers Of attorney for voting not Illegal nor con
rary public policy, but under the rules or the com
pau conferred gnt TO vote and act hereunder ana
the rejection OF theiI vote was illegal elxth th41 tue
members OF plaintiffs company did not under the .aw
rules aud regulations OF the association nave
the power cumuting their vote ON any smaller mum
ber OF ayers than number fixed by the assoca'
lions own organic law.
In the case OF the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
Company against SaIterAeId and otlers rearsuLnen'
ordered.
satterned against Benson and others-continued.