New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-12-10
A BIG SUIT BEGUN.
THOMAS G. PLATT AGAINST JOHN II. INMAN.
THE COMPLAINANT ASKS FOR AN ACCOUNTING
OF TRANSACTIONS FOR THE TENNESSEE
COAL, IRON AND RAILROAD COMPANY

op TRANSACTIONS FOR THE TENNESSEE
GOAL, IRON AND RAILROAD COMPANY
INVOLVING OVER s4ooo,ooo
The Tennessee Coal Iron and Railroad company,
nro,sh Thomas c. Plat. its PRESIDENT ooe -.
Yesterday in the United States Circuit |ou'' 49,,
Iobn II Inman for an accounting on u ano nas
so"" h.oor "A 600 600 and S5,0o0ooo' Inc
,rosses Connanv the complainant says mas oec" III
x,s,.nce for thirty years. Mr.. lnma" ~ "
financial agent dealt largely IN It's s'o.a' .,,nr.s
fnom 1880 until April, 1859, INC oo",p rL hoaras
director and the controller OF It's aai' . J., .,a y,
~ directors in that time were onoso", ~ .,sct.d
ri ;,euerce He and his associates "o,o Wv
MS inn"enoe' " Tho principal allegation of the
40" NJ. oroorrs transactions which TOOK piace IN
eonP''-|' Na,h.nyel Baxter. 1r, was PRESIDENT Oh
-, oDv Mt Inman director ana hienioor y,
49, oor,,ve committee ana inc COMPANY """ ~
'lo nd A NJ shook director lhese 'hrco 'non'
.uoccd formed plan 10 purchase inc plopo,V
IL Is a' DIT Coal and Iron Company, a corporation
OF te ii".' ,osa IN Alabama, and having capital
oreah1S 40 oss 600 and bonded debt of 81 100000
s.oen .,ords had been declared on the stock up 10
che time Of the purchase.
~" and his associates, it Is charged, Knowing
a., thew could control the Tennessee Companys
,s agreed that that company should BUY the fra''
company's property and good VIII Tor S4oooooo III
,ord and "a 500 900 in stock Of the Tennessee Com
- tho stock 10 be obtained by increasing the
,,al ~ ,be company from SO, 100000 TO $1o00o,0OO
rnman and his associates then secured options on
majority OF the Pratt Companys STOCK, paying
not more than par and expendng not over al oooooo
The Stockholders ratified the purchase, and MT lhman
and his colleagues received, it is alleged, about
"a 600 900 as profits the transaction. The pain'lh
asks for an accounting for the money received ID
the purchase by the defendant
The complainant also demands repayment OF Sloo'-
900 which the defendant received from the company
in January 1852. contract had been mado !"
septembcr 1881. by which Mr.. Inman was to receive
100000 in bonds and 100000 in stock OF the com
many for building blast furnace which, it is alleged
,ras not worth over $4,000 The contract was not
carried out, and Mr.. Inman received 100000 rom
,be company for the failure to complete the contract
Another transaction in which the company seeks
a, accounting involves Mr.. lnman's acts as nhancldi
AGENT lie was bound the complainant declares ~
raise money for the company on the best possible
terms but in 1856. when the company needed T@'o'-
600 he demanded s25o,OOO In bonds and $25O,ooo IN
s,ock for the money and secured an option to deliver
an additional sum of S250.000 for an added Sooo'ooo
t. s.curities The complainant believes that the
nroat in this transaction not less than S1ooooo'
Tracy, mcfarland, Boardman & Plat appear as
the attorneys for the Tennessee Company.
When John H. Inman was asked by Tribune re-
te last night IL he would explain the charges con-
tanned in the complaint, he remarked ""hy shou'o
- NV conscience is clear / don't look like guilty
man, do I?' Ia.
Referring 10 the Pratt transaction Mr. Inman salo'
Tho stories about our enormous pron's nave pcc"
crosslv exaggerated. None of us made anything Ike
the amounts talked about. Although we were uoo
TORS of the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company we
d,d not act as trustees when bought the interest
in the Pratt Company. We acquired That Tor our III
diydual use, and expected to go on ana oeVoiop ~
but there was then talk OF consolidation anu INC
properties were afterward merged The Pratt prop
of Tho Tom
Coal and Iron Company and not by the Board Oh
I,,recto,s The trade was made at meeting OF the
stockholders called for that purpose ee-fourhS
Of the stock was represented and the vote was uhan
nous.
NV recollection is that the Tennessee company did
issue "a 900 900 bonds and $4,500OOO stock In pay
Incnt for the Pratt property Now let us see what
became u this issue of stock and bonds. One million
dollars of the bonds left in the treasury OF the
Tennessee company. The other 81, 100000 of bonds
and 100000 Of stock went TO the owners OF the Frat
property. The present Tennessee people assume mat
We own one-half Of the Pratt Company. On that
basis. onc-half of the S3,ooo,00o of bonds and
Al 5000 900 of stock would como us, and the other
half 60 TO the balance of the Pratt stockholders, as
every Pratt stakeholder treated exactly alike On
this basis the present Tennessee company could only
assume that 70, our hs ZOO SW o Sods and two and
a quarter millions of stock, which had cost US
sl,oOooo and which with interest ana 600 0t de eA
I've offered 70 the Tennessee stockholders 81 100000
Of the bonds and ~ 100000 of the stock for
~ 900 600. which offer accepted This left
$500 900 of bonds and S75O,OOO of stock, which had
cot ms 5000 900. We actually deprived
of the use of al OOOO 900 for three four months.
This shows that all this talk Of big profits Is non
sense We do not admit that We were acting as
trustees or that morally or legally liable in
any way The pWclasc of the Pratt property has
been the making OF the Tennessee Company. for the
former Is one of the most valuable properties in
the South"
Mr. Inman said that the other charges in the com
plaint be explained satisfactorily. and he pro
posed to protect his interests now that proceedings
had been begun.