The morning call., 1890-06-10
THE SUGAR CASE.
Hayemeyers & Elder in Control
Again of the Refinery.
Receiver Reddy Dispossessed by the Supreme
Court-Effect Of the Decision Upon
the Local Market.

The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a
decision in the famous American Sugar Re
fnery case, granting an absolute and per-
emptory writ Of prohibition against Re-
ceiver Reddy and Judge Wallace of the
Superior Court, who appointed him, and
restoring the property to HayemeyerS &
Elder Of New York, with full control of the
works. The decision, which is eighty-fve
pages of type-writing in length, does not
touch the main suit for a forfeiture of the
charter of the American Sugar Refinery
Company, but merely takes the property
ont OF the receivers hands and restores it
to Havemeyers u Elder, who were stock
holders in the concern.
In 1888 an action was brought in the Su-
perior Court TO forfeit the charter of the
American Sugar Refinery Company. and
such a judgment was declared and fine OF
5000 imposed. The company was ordered
to show cause on January Goth last why a
receiver should not be appointed, but two
days before such date gave notice of an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court and filed bond
In the sum of $4,000 to stay proceedings.
The motion to appoint a receiver was
heard, and on February 18th Patrick Reddy
was appointed as such He at once pro-
ceeded to take possession Of the refinery,
but found it running with employees in the
pay OF Havemeyers Il Elder, which latter
claimed TO have bought the entire plant
from the sugar company. Mr.. Reddv tried
TO take possession and claims that he did
on the 18th, the firm on the other hand dis
putting that his possession was absolute.
HAvEMEYERs & ELDERS CUSTER.
81 he.
meyers appeared before Judge Wallace
and asked for modification of the order,
which was refused. On the same day
Judge Wallace issued an order to the
Sheriff requiring him to put Reddy in pos
session Of the refinery. The Sheriff obeyed
the order and ousted the Hayemeyers.
Meanwhile, the Havemeyers applied 10 the
Supreme Court for q writ OF prohibition,
which was granted at o'clock on the 18th
and served the same day. 1t prohibited
both Reddy and Judge Wallace from inter
fering with the property or with the con-
troll of Havemeyers " Elder.
On February 18th affidayitS were filed al
leging that Judge Wallace and Receiver
Reddy were guilty of contempt in proceed
ing under the Superior Court order con-
trary to the writ of prohibition, and the Su-
preme Court theIeupon cited Reddy and
Wallace to appear and show cause why
they should not restore the property ami
why also they should not be punished.
Tue contempt proceedings are not yet de-
teTmined, and the Supreme Court VIII, II Is
understood, file an opinion in that matter
to-day. In the decision OF yesterday the
Supreme Court says: The question at
issue is whether the Superior Court had
any right TO appoint receiver and take the
possession Of the premises away from third
parties who were not parties TO the action
and who claimed ownership III their own
right.
AN ASSUMPTION NOT JUSTIFIED.
THE assump ption, which is the basis Of
the entire argument OF Judge Wallace, IS
that the appointment OF receiver Is one OF
the penalties designed and in effect pre-
scribed by the Legislature as part OF the
tiOD which, by any misconduct OF Its own,
has forfeited its charter. There Is, In the
opinion OF the Supreme Court little to JUS
tity this assumption.
"The object of the appointment Of re-
ceiver is to wind up the concerns OF de-
funct corporation and transfer the remains
of the property to the stockholders. There
is no suggestion in all the legislation in this
question Of q punishment after death OF the
corporation, the object of such legislation
as declared in the opinion being clearly not
the imposition of punishment, but the con-
seTYatiOn of rights"
Because a COZ pOration has violated its
duty to the public, argues Chief Justice
Beatty, who wrote the decision, 1t does net
follow that its members cannot be trusted
70 look out for its own rights. The propo-
sitiOn to appoint receiver, not Tor the pur-
pose Of distributing the assets, but Tor the
purpose OF closing it up until rust has rem
deTed the works useless, Is a novel doctrine
and one not to be tolerated by the court.
The decision then discusses at length the
proposition that the writ of prohibition Is
not the proper remedy OF the HavemeyerS,
but rules atfirmatiyely. The opinion OF the
court was written by Chief justice Beatty
and was concurred in by Justices Sharp
stein, Mcfarland, Paterson, Works and Fox.
BUYERS AND SELLERS AFFECTED.
The news of the settlement of the sugar
question, as embodied in the decision of
the Supreme Court, has attracted great
deal of attention. Buyers and sellers are
equally affected and those whose daily IN
comings hinge on the prosperity Oh the
trade were most materially involved.
The reopening Of the American Refinery
by order of the Court was yesterday
heartily welcomed by the prOprietors,
who were naturally Jubllant over their
win all day. Al noon 7. Reddy virtually
surrendered the reins OF none too willing
Office, in obedience to the decree from the
Supreme Court, dated 1880 O'clock.
SU lar as the effect on the sugar market
is concerned, Ii. c. Mott, agent and attorney
of the American Sugar Refinery, stated
that they have ample stock OH hand to now
are making their price the same as before
the sugar refinery closed, viz: 6Ac per
puud for granuIated, which figure Jobbers
and dealers have during the late sugar war,
showed up to nc, as charged to JobberS
and consumers.
He further stated that the present edict
Of the court is of great value. IN that while
the couIt's decision has been in force, those
who have been thrown out of their usual
employment, the refinery will now be only
too glad to re-employ. The demand Tor
their sugar is heavy, but IN lew days
they will, they hope, be well abb to supply
it.
A POSSIBLE CASE.
The firm Of J. d. SpTeckels estimates that
the increased addition TO the market sup
ply by this court decree may amount to
l5OO0 OF 10000 barrels, involving possible
drop Of seven-eighths Of a cent. So far as
tLey are concerned, they will simply have
10 meet the market, and will do it. They
have never been hard on consumers, and
never will, ever since the gantlet mas been
thrown down.
With New York showing strong ad-
vance of three-Quarters Of cent i'll ten
days-owing chiefly to the tarltf-agltation
and consequent market uncertainty, tnere
is no telling what may or must happen.
All buyers who have strenuously put on
buying are now buying heavily, all coming
in with a rush. Meantime, as TO the future
OF the market, no prophet dare say word.
The receiver. i. Reddy, of Z. Reddy,
Campbell Il Metson, who has been acting as
receiver in charge since the courts decision
to that effect, since February lst, states
that during his jurisdiction no property has
been sold. As regards the possible action
in the future of those interested, the firm
meanwhile state that they will neither in
dicate nor intimate possible future action,
but in the interim they seem far from averse
to letmatter5 rest as at present, and IN fact
they will not SO do.
Since the decision OF the court yesterday
morning there has been some 100000 or
$4,000 worth of raw sugar to tackle, 4 work
rapidly progressing.
TIMED CnNSInDu u.mrnu