Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-11-16
INJUNCTION SET ASIDE.
Judge Adams Opinion in the 81
vannah and Dublin hallway Case.


Judge Adams Opinion in the Sa-
vannah and Dublin hallway Case.
Judge Adams filed his decision yester-
day morning dismissing the Injunction
against the Savannah, Dublin aud Wes-
tern short Line Railway Company. The
decision held that TO invoke the remedies
which Ferguson & Co. sought they mus.
establish by clear testimony:
l. The existence OF their debt.
2. The fact that 1t is now due and de-
maudable.
3. The further fact that to insure the
collection OF the debt, equitable inter
Vention is necessary,
The only evidence offered by the CON-
plainants with reference TO the amount of
their claim was found IN the affidavit OF
r. ). Payne, Jr. Mr.. Payne stated that
at the request of Fergus son IL Co., about
Sept. &, 1885, he with Mr.. POu.
the chief engineer in Savannah, went
over the entire line of road and that the
estimates snow about $4,000 due Fergu-
son & Co., on the work. just how this
result is reached the decision says does
not appear.
The opinion goes on TO say that together
with the affidavit of Mr.. Pou, the de-
fendant submits the report of Messrs.
Pou and Payne, predicated upon the eX
animation to which the letter refers as
having been made on said Sept. 5.
From the report and the arithmetic cal
culations based thereon, the correctness
OF which is not Impugned, it appears that
after deducting the 10 per cent, which
may be reserved under the contract and
the sums which are to be reserved for
Powers IL Co., the original contract ors,
$9,6SS.03, Will representa- amount which
would he due to Ferguson & Co. for work
on the first four sections OF this road.
1t further appears that after deducting
said 10 per cent, S., OF A will represent
the amount which would be due Tor work
on sections 5, 6 and :, these two sums ag-
gregating $I2, 1856 At. Messrs. Ferguson
i Co. have received on account the sum
OF ST 1851 81, and their drafts to the amount
OF Sl0,S72 have been accepted by the de-
fendant company. In estimating the
Gum that they may demand from the de-
fendant, those drafts must of course be
deducted. The right to collect them is in
the holders thereof, who are not parties
to this proceeding. This would reduce
the claim OF Ferguson d Co., as shown by
the evidence, to 1915 80.
But the opinion says the defendant was
served with notice of liens, claimed by
sub-c"ntrActOrs under Ferguson IL Co,
aggregating in the neighborhood of S., 900.
Without regard, therefore, to the question
as to whether the work has been properly
performed and the contract complied
with, so far as the undisputed testimony
indicates, Ferguson d Co. have no claim
which they may now demand OF the de-
tendant, either in court of equity or of
law.
The claims OF Messrs. ClaybrOke and
Young, recently made parties to the pro-
ceeding, are unVerlfied.
Without reverting to the other facts and
phases OF the case, what is before sta ted
appears incontestible reason why the
prayer for an injunction and receiver
cannot be granted. 1t was therefore con-
sidered and ordered that the prayer be de-
MED, and that the order heretofore passed
appointing temporary restraining order
be set aside.