New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-11-10
TIE MARIE-GARRISON SUIT.

eEFEREE DWIGHT DECIDES THAT THE EVIDENCE
MUST BE HEARD.
In the suit of Peter Marie and other stock
holders OF the Pacific Railroad of Missouri the predeces
sOr OF the present Missouri Pacific Railway Company
against Cornelius X. Garrison, Professor Theodore
Dwight, as referee handed In over 100 pages
Of legal-cap manuscript yesterday, giving his
decision certain preliminary points involved in the
contest The defendants counsel had objected TO pro-
ceedng beyond certain point in the case the ground
that the contract alleged to have been entered by
Commodore Garrison obnoxious TO the statutes OF
fraud In Missouri and this State.
Commodore Garrison had promised by letter that if
the mortgage against the original road allowed
be forelosed. he would purchase the road and
mako 1t over to successor company, which
would issue bonds to pay his claim and
that OF other bondhoder and would stock to the
plaintiffs to represent their interest. Mr.. Garrison not
liking the form OF the letter said aerward that this
delivered up would oral contract to buy
the road at foreclosure SALE convey 1t TO the successor
company which would give mortgage bonds for the debt
and them subject TO that mortgage, he would issue
$S00o000 Of stock OF which he would give the plaintiffs
s36o0oO0 of this stock, thus reserving majority OF it
10 himself. The others yielded.
After Commodore Garrison went TO St. Louis to make
me purchase, he teegaphed back that the stock had
slsen ana ne would not bid 1t for them. The Pierce
party oio on the road formally but they being unable
pay ior H. Commodore Garrison took It of their hands
Wheh he pahtns called for their shares the defendant
alleged mat as the property higher than he expected
re was relieved az to purchasing il Tor the plaintiffs and
pou III Ioin, tne statute OF frauds relieved lin, be-
pause no consideration Of the agreement was in
The letter. '''' "NP10 ~
The referee held that the New.York statute
Of frauds had nothing 10 do with tho 900
Or, II had' the agreement would not be void
because there was interest In iand q, a.
base TO which the law refers and further thas NJ tc
fsoD is bound by the agreement because the a
bdyanced as consideration a mortgage which 1ss snx
plosed so that the property could not be got barE I
supplies sufficient consideration for the oral contract
Shoh although made In this State there reason to sSp
pose the referee holds 10 be performed I'M 81 P
Aside from this even though made In tbis SUI.
fhe agreement is governed by Missouri law which says
that contract Of this kind ia In the statute of
knd shall not be made void. but that no action shi
pc brought upon IT, 90 that the statute simply affects fh
temedy In the contract and not its validity hence ~ "a
Fad here tested BY Missouri law This Contract was fop
ttQok, and 80 valid by Eew-York law. WV oI
hegarding the point raised by exJudge Comstock that
fhs Is an action In court OF law the referee holds
khere is enough In the case TO maintain n ss an
bcton In equity He further states that the contract
Eas one for services more than for sale OF shares
shs does not come within the statute OF frauds '
"Vbis decision, said Professor Dwight last evening