The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1888-02-18
ANEW SUIT AGAINST M'KEEN
The Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Com
pany Dismiss the Original Complaint,
And File New One Asking that the Contract
with Ives Be Set Aside and Demand
ing $3.50, 000-Court Items.

The controversy between the Cincinnati,
Hamilton 81 Dayton and Vaudalis railroads,
for some time in the federal court, has again
been deferred on account Of modified petition
by the plaintiff Judge Gresham had como
down from Chicago and with Judge Woods was
In readiness yesterday morning to listen to a
large amount of legal eloquence. The large
array or attorneys selected to defend Mr. Nc
Keen were also there, expecting to plunge into
the trial OF the case, but Mr.. NJ axwell, the at
torney for the c.. "a. & D., the plaintiff, sur
prised everybody by disnssing the suit at his
clients costa This appeared to end the contro-
versy, and court adjourned, but few minutes
later the attorneys for the plaintiff fled in the
clerks office another suit with the same caption,
&C, a & D. r. r. Co. vs.. W. r Mckeen."
Itdiffered from the first suit mainly in that il
asked for no injunction, but demanded merely
that the contract between Ives and McKeen be
set aside and the money paid such contract
be refunded. The former suit had sought to
cover both these points.
The new petition sets out that r. Fl. & I.
company has a capital stock of little less than
10000 at the par value OF $50 each; that the
plaintiff has not, and. as defendant knew, never
had corporate authority to purchase any of the
stock Of the T. e. 81 I. or T. III. & l.. roads. be-
ing incorporated in the State of Ohio Never
tkeless, the directors of the c. H.
g D. company, for the purpose of
acquiring control Of the r. Fl. & T., as sumed to
authorize and did direct Henry S. Ives to pur
chase 10000 shares of T. II. 6 I. stock at price
not to exceed 800 per share. The defendant
on june l, agreed to sell to Ives as trustee for
plaintiff H. 100 shares at $780, The T. Il 6 ].
at the time owned s,S40 shares of its own stock,
ST. t. d.
as trustee for it. and which McKeen agreed to
sell to Ives at s62. SO per share. In considera-
ton of said sale by McKeen.
Ives. unknown to the plaintiff, agreed
of the par value Of said shares so sold by him
president and trustee (beine 1891 ,500). and,
further to purchase from Mexican. vidually.
4,446 shares of the T. FL. g. l. stock of the par
value of $50 at 30 per cent being Sill $50, which
stock was OF little value. The payment all
told, for these blocks of stock was s1,558. 600.
The plaintiffs say that the above agreement
the time, and that no knowledge or suspicion
OF the fraudulent arranesment aforesaid
S %h.s Ives son.e and Meksan and md
their written agreement, was entertained.
that the written agreement was retained by de-
PENDANT, and that the officers of the c., Fl. e. D.
bad no knowledge of it's contents until within O
few days of the maturity Of the notes provided
for payment. Ives, pursuant to the agreement.
had paid the defendant. altogether $3.50, 500. all
ceived knowing that the entire transaction was
ultra wires, illegal ard fraudulent, and that he
now holds said sum in trust for the plaintiff and
it's stockholders.
The petition further cites the note for $685.
49, the balance due under the agreement. and
executed by Ives as trdstes of the defendant
IL also alleges that the LAG shares Of t., H 81
l.. stock were transferred into the name of Ives
as trustee, but defendant retained the certificate
of the said stock, and that Ives subsequently,
without the knowledge or consent of the plant
if. executed and delivered TO McKeen
irrevocable power of attorney to vote all of the
said stock of the T. Fl. 81 l. and T. FL. & l..
stockholders; that thereby defendant reelected
himself director.
The petition states that Ives at that time had
a majority of the c., Ell. & D. stock. but he has
been deposed from the board of officers and di-
rectors. who have rspudiated the purchase made
from McKeen and have demanded OF McKeen to
return the $685., 500 and to cancel the outstand-
ing note. although plaintiff at this time offered
to carry out the said purchase if defendant
desired, provided he could eliminate the fraud
uleut" item of 1891 500 and the unauthorized
item of Sill $50
AS it is alleged defendant McKeen has re-
fused to comply with such q proposition, the
plaintiff asks that he be declared TO hold the
said $3.50, 600 as trustee for the c., H. g. D., and
that be may be required to pay over the same to
plaintiff and cancel the agreement and the note.