New-York tribune., 1886-04-27
THE COURTS.
TELEGRAPH LITIGATION,
DECISION BY JUSTICE ANDREWS IN AN ACTION
AGAINsI LILLE XEsIERN nNInx

|
DECISION BY JUSTICE ANDREWS IN AN ACTION
| AGAINST THE WESTERN UNION.
On the motion for a stay of proceedings in the
suit. in the Supreme Court, Of John q. Farnswortn a.
receiver OF the Bankers and MerchaDts' Telegram
Company against the Western Union Telegraph Com
pany for S2.O0O000 damages. for s alleged forcibs
seizure OF the wires and property In the receivers hands
such stay operate pos ponement OF the trial until
the determ alton OF the suit OF Edward Hr.
land receiver of the American RapII Telegraph Com.
psny against the plaintiff In this action and tho
United Circuit Couru Justice Andrews yeslerlay
handed down an opinion giving his for denying
| the application. lie says:
II to that the argument In support Of thu
motion 70 stay the trial Of ms action IL based upon the
assump pton OF a which does not existaame'y that
Iarand, ~ receiver OF The American Rapid TELEGRAPH
| Company. authorized the Western Union Telegraph
Company to take possession OF al! the property which
actually was taken. or at any rae of all that the West
Union took and now holds Bnt 80 far apparent
from the papers before Harland dd not glye.
sumo TO give such authority What he dd do.
dertake was the Western Union Compa.
to take possession or all the property which belonged
to the American RAPID Telegraph Company and tSe
order OF this Court dated July TO- 1885 did direct
Receiver FarDsworth surrender any property be sides
that of the American R'pld Company. The Western
Ing what property. 1t hai the right to take under
tho uh0rity = given ami 1t seems TO to bc too
clear for discussion that no recovery can be had IN tho
action brought by Harland and now pendint IN the
United Court either against hun or the American
Rapid Company for any injury done IN taSng properly
which belongs to the Banker and Merchants COMPANY
the taking Of the property OF the last-naned
company
TIE Western Union Company Il not party OF recOrt
o the action brought by Iarland. and Ot course no
Judgment can b. rendered against II In that action. To
usfy therefore Of tho trial of the action pending
he assumed IN advance IN ~ TX VIII
turn ont that the Bankers and Merchants Company dit
not own any OF the property taken-dn assumption
v Inch the Court cannot well make. II seems
10 me therefore that ] cannot stay the tnu
Of the action pending In this court except npOn
he asupttOn that the III nti has no cause oi acton
and il cert tainy will not be claimed thai an at hDry
I,,',, In nf
womb he NY conclusion IL that the motion for
a stay must be denied with $40 costs.
The 80 900 900 supreme Court Will probably
be tried next week unless stay Is granted b. SON,
other judge.
RIGHT TO SELL A STOCK EXCHANGE SEAT
The General Term % the City Court IN Brooklyn
ha e down yesterday important decision relative 10 he
stock Exchange Judge ieynois recenty onicr that ths
s.af In tho Stck exchange brion 10 James W. Mlfc
fnrd benefit O iis ere il0r% lue btnriu
Term fcyci~Ds tbs Ice si1u Jui-cs tlfmen tl 40 b.
acr lhe clam The paiuf that The recover ~
The prOpaftv hat the nRht 70 s"i the -tt tal '
heirs OF d. nber have 10 dspos' 81 M sh Vh
plut "W We Do not mink tld heeal
the Eschangr has the rgnt g. disp = ot N. sei OF
ceased memD-r 1t follows cOid be mpe ed on VIII
to sell his scat IN r. T. no 'e
ton ia constitute which authorizes IN EAchihk' -
81, 4 sca except IN tSO clfeA VIZ Wh'n nen 81 hAf
seal 70 marty AMI nominate him Tor election. an u he u
elected could cOnDl Nj Batchf ri 10 * Nt'f
Trans er 10 e pure the seat II deces ~ ani pi
the appellant susp nte 'nemnef oFuk hD' ' lN'
cie an order soli pursuant 70 se1n5 "
Article Il Oi tie tOnslu lDn'