Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-09-01
THE LOAN ALLOWED.
ASuit Involyings10, 100000 Against
the B. & 0. Road Knocked Out
BY>MASTER CARNAHAN'S REPORT
He Decides the Loan Was Regular and
Legitimately Applied.
SOME BIG ESTATES ARE THE LOSERS

r. B. Carnahan, Esq, examiner ant
master in the case of John r. Gloninger
administrator de bonis non cum testam entc
annexo of Sarah B. Fetterman, deceased
and executor of the estate of Gi lbert l.. B
Fetterman, deceased, and Ada K. Chain
for herself, VS. the Pittsburg and Connells.
vile Railway Company, Baltimore and
Ohio Railway Company, Union Truss Com.
pany, of New York, and Robert Garrett
and the directors of Pittsburg and Connells-
vile Railway Company yesterday filed his
report in the Court of Common Pleas No. 1.
The trouble grew out of loan of $40, 600, 900
negotiated in 1885. and to which plaintiffs
objected. The report is very voluminous,
extending over some 300 pages of type
writer sheet. The attorneys for the plain
titfs were D. T. Watson, W. S. Pier and T.
c. Lazear, Esqrs., and for the defense Johns
McCleave and J. s. Ferguson, Esqrs.
Mr. Carnahan was appointed master and
examiner on June 5, 1886, to report facts
found and form of decree There was
taking of testimony at frequent intervals
during two years and six days. and nearly
hall the notables in the companies mentioned;
from Robert Garrett down, were examined
at one time or other.
Mr.. Gloninger, as administrator Of the es-
tate of Mrs. Sarah B. Fetterman, deceased,
held Ito shares of the capital stock of the
Pittsburg and Connellsville Railway Com
pany, and ten shares as the executor of Gill
bert Fetterman, deceased, and Ida Chain
five shares. Subsequently the executors of
Daniel Kane, deceased; the administrator
of the estate of Peter Rist, deceased and
james Hurst, for himself, were allowed to
intervene as plaintiffs. AS stated by the
examiner, the gravamen of the plaintiffs
complaints is contained in the following
averments;
WHAT THE PLAINTIFFS CLAIM.
That the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad,
controlling the Pittsburg and ConneIlsville
Railway Company. in 1884 and 1885 desired
to secure loan of $40, 900, 600 for its own
purposes; that the money was needed for the
extension of certain of its lines in which the
Pittsburg and Connellsville Railway Com
pany was not interested and with which it
could make no connections; that the Bali-
more and Ohio Railway Company could not
secure the desired loan merely on its own
bonds. and deemed the extra security neces-
sary to get sufficient depth OF financial
water" to float the bonds on the market;
that scheme was devised by the officers in
charge of the Baltimore and Ohio Railway
Company, In which they were Joined by the
officers and directors OF the Pittsburg and
Connellsville Railway Company, by which
the latter company was to issue $40 900, 900
of its bonds to the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-
way Company, to be secured by mortgage
on all the property of the Pittsburg and |
Connellsville Railway Company, whether
then held or thereafter to be acquired, and |
on the franchise of the latter company, to |
enable the former company to float its $10,- |
0O,OOO without mortgaging any of its prop |
erty or franchises; that the Baltimore and |
Ohio Railway Company was to issue its |
own bonds for $40, ,000, 900, bearing the same |
date, and like rate OF interest as those
of the bonds of the Pittsburg and Connells-
vile Railway Company, the bonds and
mortgage OF the latter company to be secu-
rity for the payment of the bonds of the
Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company. and
all this to be done solely for the benefit of
the Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company,
for purposes in which the Pittsburg and
Connellsville Railway Company had no
interest whatever.
Plaintiffs averred in the tenth paragraph
of their bill that the property on which the
Baltimore and Ohio Railway Company
based its security, stocks and bonds in vari-
ous branch railways, counting the stock at
par and bonds at their face value, aggregat-
ed -, GAG, 700, but that the real value of all
said stock and bonds in about a dozen roads
1t the time In question was not then nor at
present above SS00,00 1t was also charged
hat the Baltimore and Ohio Railway Com
pany controlled said companies and con-
,ealed facts in reference thereto and it was
llso averred by plaintiffs that many of these
stocks and bonds were illegally issued by
he different companies and illegally ac-
Iuired by the Baltimore and Ohio Railway
Company.
A STORY TOO LONG TO TELL.
There are so many averments in the bill.
md they have been so amplifed by the ex-
lberance of legal phraseology, that the
eader's patience would fail if asked to
yade through one-tenth of the mass. Meet
ngs were held to take testimony in this
ity, Baltimore and New York, and the
headings embrace SO many averments of
act and so many denials, qualifications, ex-
'lanations and counter allegations of fact
n the three separate answers that the whole ,
over over go pages Of printed matter,
The master finished his report on the 28th
T last June, and on the 8th of July plain a
ifs submitted 92 exceptions to the master. {
DING to nearly every finding of law and
act Defendants exceptions relate to mat ! a
e-s OF law and fact such as the alleged | t
aches of the plaintiffs non-reioinder of 4
ecessary parties as defendants, alleged
ecessity of an antecedent tender of restitu- v
on OF the property, etc. The master b
tates that he has on these averments t
nd suggestions of error reviewed d
is entire report and carefully con-
dered the findings, and has found no C
eason to modify any of his conclusions as o
espects either the law or the facts of the I
lse, and both plaintiffs and defendants y
are overruled. He states. how
yer, that few of the plaintiffs executions a
lould be noticed for purposes of explana- o
alton. One of these is the seventh, 4 4
TOO MUCH CREDIT ALLOWED. il
In receiving and relying in the declaration
the Pittsburg and Connellsville Railway ! a,
ompany. as made in its annual reports after | M
came under tie control of the Baltimore and =
hio Railway Company as evidence except in I.
far as they are made self-disseryinp and 7,
ade against interest p
Exception 19-In adopting as his finding
fact and history of the Pittsburg and =;
onnellsvllle Railway Company, the p
'inted reports of said company, which were &
and inspired by the Baltimore IL
ID Ohio Company's agents, who controlled
e Pittsburg and Connellsville Company. LIS
In reference to the annual reports referred ar
in these exceptions, the master has to hi
ite: m
First-That the Objectionable reports were -
cred in evidence by the plaintiffs On page :
Of the "Pittsburg testimony" will be found ia
plaintiffs offer in these words. da
a. g. - LIT. r.