Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1889-03-19

adhere, therefore, to my former ruling on
this point ard hold that the date Of the ii
Jog of the bill In this cause determines the
relation of the claim of any creditor Of the
canal company to the statute Of limitations.
This ruling carries with it that which
must be made on the objection of plain
ants counsel, that the petition of Alexan-
dra setting up the bonds she holds against
the canal company, should be dismissed for
emitting to set out and account for laches
in presenting them, as required by various
decisions of the Supreme Court OF the United
States, especially those in the case Of Badger
V. Badger and Richards V. Mackall ubi
supra Unika those cases, the petition OF
Alexandria was not an original suit brought
by her for The sole or primary purpose Of
setting up right apparently stale, end re-
covering land or other property, the posses
sion of which had been lost by her own Gu /.
pabe leches ard gross negligence. This pc
ttion is a mere incident of suit brought by
another for various and different purposes
She need not have fl Cd any petition at all !;
and if Der petition was unnecessary, then
the fllness or brevity OF it is wholly imma
terial She a creditor in q creditor = bill. She
was not named in the bill as such She WIS
called upon in general terms by the bill and de-
of the court to appear before the master and
prove her claim; and this she has done. Tie omis-
sion to file petition which che need not have
fled at all with explanations and excuses for in
dulging her insolvent debtor for long period Of
| time " immaterlal, and cannot affect her lights
in suit which sho did not originate and in
which she is defendant only by virtue of her
being a creditor of the debtor canal company.
Another exception taken by complsinsnts
counsel is, in substance that the master
did not report debt from Alex
andra to the canal company certain sum Of
$40, GAG, rs an Offset and virtual liquidation of
The amount of $50, GOO due from the company to
| Alexandra, which the master found to be due,
unpaid and unbarrcd. 1t seems that the city OF
Alexandria issued $500 600 of city bonds for the
ru pose of obtaining funds for her subscription of
t lat amount to the capital stock of the canal COM
plny. Some, perhaps all, of the bonds may have
been received by the directors of the canal com
piEy under an express or implied understanding
that they should be taken At par as payment to
that extent On the ci;ys subscription" Such is
the statement Of the exccpant, ard it would seem
! thht here loss by the canal compa Y, IL It's
negotiation of part of the bonds so received, in
their sale. of $40 GAG and it is contendcd by the
| cxceptant that il was beyond the legal power of
! the canal directors, either tactly, or by agree
mcnt contract, to receive any thing but money
! for subscriptions. Hence the present claim, mover
before made, for this drawback. The transaction
occarred within q few years after the incorpora-
ton of the canal COMPANY, not less, or not many
years less, than fifty years ago. 1t is useless ID
| inquire into the original validity of tn claim for
Il drawback. Obviously it is very stale one. and
| ii il ever allowable by the court il must
| share tho same fate that befc the bonds of th..
company held by Alexandria which wcro buried
| by statutory limitation. 1t cannot bo allowed
now as an offset to any claim of alexandria tha,
| is not barred in The same manner, for 1t is itself
| barred by statute and dOubly barred,
Another exception TO the masters report find
cg 32 GOO to be still due the city of Alexsndris,
is based upon an Allegation of fraud and deccp-
tioa charged to have been practiied by Alexan-
: dria in conceaing the existence of her claim
against the canal company ut the time when the
complainant was demanding the delivery of 122O
shares of the company's stock to make good the
| full number due from her under stibulations to
deliver al the shares owned by her in the COM
! ptny.
! do rot rocolect that this point hiss been made
before n any stage Of this suit, or that 1t WAS
m l1c in the previous suit brought by this con-
| painant against the city of Alexandria for the
share of stock alluded to. Corporations can speak
only by their records. The complainant Was
owner of a majority OF the stock of the canal COM
peLy. As such it had power over the records of
! the canal company, and the fullest right to in
spect all its books. 1t had constructive notice of
the record or.rcsolution of November 18th, 1858
by which the canal company formally and sol
| EMMY gistcred the fact of its Indebtedness to
the city of Alexandria in the sum of sol 923
principal, and ) &c Oj6 interest. Surely this
cord was enough to put the complainant upon in
quiry into nil permanc facts. and when it demand
cd the 1920 shares OF Alexandria in its suit
| brought Tor those and other shares q few years
ago. the Court is bound to presume that it WAS
cogni2aut of that indebtedness due the city.
There could have been no cOncealmcnt OF the
debt to a vieiant stakeholder OF the canal com
pAny, and if the complainant neglected TO advise
itself of facts recorded in the manner indicated,
tho court cannot listen to its plea of ignorance
now. VigiidatibHs non diamientijnS jHrG SnJrenHm.
b sides it seems to mo that question of fraud
cannot be fairly ltigaed Al properly adjudicsted
when first brought forward in exception to
masters report 1t comes too late at that late
stage of cause, without pleas PROOFS TO be en-
tied to consideration by the Court.
On the whole csuse decide to overru'e all eX-
captions and confirm the masters report in all re-
spects. If have erred, the amounts in dispute are
amply large TO authorize an appeal.