Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-10-22
MILLIONS IN LITIGATION.
A Law Suit Ended After Being Twenty
six Years in Court.

Pttts6UTg Special, 18th.
In the Supreme Court to-day Justice
PaXson filed an opinion covering 90 pages
of legal cap in the famous case of Asa
Packer against Noble, Hammett e Co.
which was bill in equity asking the
court In Carbon county, Pa, to decree an
account stated. The proceeding was
commenced more than 26 wears ago.
Since that time all of the original parties
to the suit have died. Justice PaXson
says the expenses of the case when il
reached the Supreme Court were over
$l,OO0,OO0, and its decision involves many
millions more. In 1850 Asa Packer, who
atterward became Judge and was
Democratic candidate for Gov
ernor, was coal operator at
Mauch Chunk and engaged in the
coal commission business in PHILADELPHIA.
On April /, OF that year, he formed a co.
partnership with Joseph Noble, Barnabus
iIammett and Franklin Hall, who were
IN the coal commission business. and
during the term of the partnership had
houses in Philadelphia, Boston and New
York. In 1852 Asa Packer opened negOti-
atlons with the parties controlling the
Lehlgh valley Railroad Company, which
then had neither capital nor credit. and
the negotiations resulted in contract
with the company by which he agreed
to build the road from Mauch Chunk TO
Easton, Penn. including bridge over
the Delaware river at PhilIipsburg, N.
j., for the sum of $1,000, 900, of which
$1,000 should be paid in the capital
stock OF the company and $1,000, 900 in first
mortgage bonds. The road was estimated
to cost 81 ,6O0,O00 and the bonds at 80 per
cent. and the stock at 5315 per cent. of
their par value would be the Equivalent Of
the supposed cost.
Mr.. Packer offered his partners one
fifth of the stock and bonds he was TO
receive from the company, and the same
proportions of the profits of the enter
prise, If they would furnish One-ifth of
the cost of constructing the road. They
hesitated about this, and on February
1853, when Mr.: Packers offer was pre-
sented in writing, did not sign it. He
proceeded with the enterprise alone,
drawing various sums of money, amount
ing to $15O,000, from the firm, which was
charged to his individual account. In
1900 his drafts were refused, and he de-
posted with the firm 800 shares OF Le-
high Valley stock and 100 bonds valued
at 81 900 each. The same year Mr.. Pack
er became financially embarrassed and
he was practically expelled from the firm
in 1856. He then commenced proceedings
in equity for an accounting. His railroad
interest proved profitable, and he became
one of the wealthiest men i'm
the State. There was mar
tial settlement of the suit, but in
1870, five years after the death of MFR.
Noble, the defendants filed an amended
bill, in which they claimed that the firm
of Hammett, Noble a. Co. were partners
with Mr.. Packer in the railroad enter
prise, and that the money he received
from the firm was on this account. They
claimed, too, that Mr.. Packer had OBJ
tanned money by using the firms name
surreptitiOusly, and that they were en-
titled to receive from him over ST.. .OOO. 900.
In support of this claim they produced
the proposition originally made by Mr..
Packer; it was duly signed and purported
to be regular agreement. The sigma
ture of Noble, Hammett d Co., however.
was in Il different kind of ink from thai
of Mr.. Packer, and the Master, after TAX
ing testimony that makes twelve large
printed volumes, decided against their
claims. The court of Carbon county af-
tirmed the Masters decision.
The heirs of Noble, Hammett a. Co. an
pealed to the Supreme Court. Justice
PaXsOn affirms the decision of the Master
and the lower court, and orders the ap-
pellants to pay the costs. His theory of
the case, which he says is one of the most
remarkable on record, is that Noble and
Hammett signed Mr.. Packers PROPOSE
tion without his knowledge and never no.
titled him Of their acceptance of it. Their
object in this was doubtless to protect
themselves against loss if the railroad en-
terprise should be failure and at the
same time be in position to demand a
share of whatever profits might accrue.
The court is satisfied that, if Mr.. Packer
had not eXtricated himself from his finan-
cial difficulties and become immensely
wealthy, the alleged agreement would
never have seen the light of day.