New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-08-23
THE COURTS.


DECISION REGARDING II. W. GRAY's PETITION
IN THE NORTH RIVER SUGAR RE-
filming COMPANY SUIT.
Judge Cullen, in the Supreme Court of Kings
County, yesterday handed down his decision in rela-
ton to the pstitlon Of Henry Winthrop Gray, tho
receiver Of the North River Sugar Refining Company,
TO be made defendant in tie action brought by the
trustees of the sugar Trust for the distribution OF
the property old earnings of the trust among the
different companies and for the dissolution OF the
trust itself The action result OF the decision
Of the Court Of Appeal, that the sugar Trust was
Illegal The Judge decides that Mr.. Gray is entitled
to be made a defendant. The plaintiffs set up the
contention that they had none of the property Oh
The North Rive" sugar Refining Company in their
hands but that the receiver had taken possession OF
all the property Of that corporation.
Judge Cullen IN his opinion. says that he sees no
reason to believe that the trustees have in their
possession the capital stock of the North River Sugar
Refining Company, but IL conceded that all the
property Of the corporation had been turned over 10
the receiver by the trustees, and the action ala not
seek to distribute the assets thus turned Neither
the receiver entitled to any of the profits OF tho
trust, which 10 only to the certificate hold
crs. If the trust deed be void the most that could
result would be- that the corporations might recover
the earning, scyerally made by them But the North
River Company earned nothing, and therefore never
contributed anything to the profits OF the trust NOT
with,tanding these facts, however, the Judge says
that there is another aspect Of the case. The North
River sugar Refining Company party to the
trust deed and ii 10 ntl alive would ~ necessity
BE party 10 The action and any other parties 10 me
deed might dcniur account OF their absence. the
receiver succeeded To all the rghtn and privileges
uf that corporation. II i true that III an aCtlOn
brought by people To dissolve the corporation >uch
contract was held Illegal. but to that action the other
corporations present. That decision Only
SETH that such corporation had died. II there are
on, anding legations the other parties thereto have
the right To itsatc the validity of the obligations Ill
their own suite. All the courts have held that the
trust deed created partnership OF the several cor
porations paic, to it, and thi, action In effect was an
action to close out such partnership. II the rust
had been legal Il undcniable that the receiver
a, the representative of dead partner would DE -
necessary party to the action, though he might
not be entitled receive any Of the assets OF inc
tru.t lie Interested 10 that the assets were
properlv distributed 10 the extent that might be nee
r..arv 10 save himself the corporation he repre-
.cntcd from liability. Assuming that the contract
va, Illegal and that of the parties could nave
any relief against any other party stlu the moral
Obligation would rest the plaintiffs To eve every
party an interest and the share Of the properly 10
which he Wa entitled. since the receiver was 4
party 10 the contract he + party 10 the action ana
The only additional allegation required IN me com
pl,iut /, To- aver the dissolution OF the North River
sugar Refining Company and the appointment of the
petitioner a, receiver.