New-York tribune., 1885-07-16
THE COURTS.
SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA LITIGATION.
THE MOTION FOR RECEIVER DESIED-No DANGER

OVOAh LNN01 ~ ANA LllIOAllONs
THE MOTION FOR RECEIVER DENIED-NO DANGER
TO Mr.. BAGALEY's INTERESTS.
Chief Judge Sedgwick In the Superior Co urt
yesterday handed down his decision on the application
of Ralph Bagaley for the appointment Of receiver Of
the property Of the syndicate Of the South Pennsylvania
Railroad Company and for temporary injunction re-
straining further proceedings under syndicate
ment with the American Construction Company. pending
suit brought by him against william K. Vanderbilt the
American Construction Company the south
Railroad Company and others. including William H.
Vanderbilt William G. Whitney and James b. Colgate.
In his opinion the Judge thus states the and do
cides 1t:
The complaint asks Judgment which shall, among
other things adudge that the syndicate agreement and
struction Company are incapable OF performance by
reason o. the ncapscty Of the South pennsyvaua
s.s shall adjndgo this plaintiff to be relieved OF
OF the violation and alteration by the COMMITTEES
a ne other parties thereto and tue other matters set
or association of subscriber. and wind up Its
aiars Inc motion Is for an injunction and receiver
appear that see"dass Of tSH W 0Hn unes: r
strained. commit some act during the pen
plaintiff or now throatcn to do some act in violation OF
tho plaintiffs rights respecting the subject OF the action
aud tending to render the Judgment Intellectual In
where the plaintd docs that the defend
ants are about do during the pending Of the action
sary to determine whether or not thore s any cause OF
action.
In this the plann show that II he should
hereafter obtain the Judgment asked. his Interests
as be states them. will have been n the meantime
changed affected. He paid the committee $220,
0O0 His complaint asserts that he is bound to pay
any further upon call by the committee II his
position bc correct he cannot DO compelled to pay or
risk any further amount OF money. His only interest,"
then, relates to tho money he has already paid HIS
affidavit shows that tho most Of IL has been dsbursed by
the committee, and the COMMITTEES has received bonds
and stocks for that while the plaintiff believes that part
remains not dlsbursed The aidaJt OF mcDlLers OF the
committee shows that all OF the money paid IN by the
plaintiff to the committee upon calls has been paid out
by IL To tho Construction Company and by that company
10 the railroad company excepting what was paid 10
the company and that tho committee has In its posses
sion certain shares and bonds In which, under the synd
cate agreement the piantf has interest Tho pro-
portion OF these shares and bonds TO which the plann
would be entitled favorable to him Is l1l50
III he has Judgment now In his favor, he could
have OF this property than the part represented
by such "a proportion. IL Is suggested that ne mas
money demand against the committee Tor acts done ny
them. This claim cannot be injured by act that the
defendants may do during tie litigation. IL 10 MOI
charged that the defendants intend TO convert or DIS
pose OF the property IN which the plaintiff has an inter
est, as IL has been described excepting that II 10
argued from their conduct that 1t is their intention to
make cal upon hn The present TIA, facts teL 70
call is made It cannot be shown that tho de-
PENDANTS now intend TO attempt forfeiture
plaintiff can obtain the proper protection II mani
fest that the syndicate agreement be prosecuted In the
future II will not be by aid OF the paintihs money.
but Py the money OF other people IN when ne mas no
receiver would be to have the bonds and stock safe
the plaintiff he have Judgment that he Is entitled to
bonds and stock Will remain untouched until Judg-
Inent.
The motion Is denied with costs aud tho plaintiff is re.
qured to give 81 500 security for costs