Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-12-18
CAUSE CELEBRE
Attorney General HOgg's Argument on
the international Bond Case.
Clear Presentation OF the Case on Behalf Of
the State-Raasons Why the state
should Intervene
Special to the Gazette.

Special TO the Gazette.
TYLER, Tex. Dec. I7.-Following is a YER
batim re ort of Attorney General H)gg's arsu-
ment on he International bond case. delivered
before the supreme court at Tyler VI sterday. It
Is a clear pres ntation of the case on behalf of
the state. and sets forth in formidable array the
reasons why the state should interfere an
fnterveuor, and why the bonds should be de-
clarei Invalid. It is as follows:
Argument nf Attorney General ). Hogg In
the supreme court at Ty er. in the case of he
State of Texas. appel ant, the Farmers
Loan and Trust Company and the Internal ional
and Great Northern Railroad Company, appel
lees
STATEMENT OF rHE Ns-cRR AND RESULT OF THE
ACTON.
This was a suit iDsIIlulcd the district court
of NTH county. Tex, March 30, 1889, bv the
Formers loan and trust comNany plain if
against the international aud Great Northern
raj road C mrany as defendant, TO recover the
sum of So. aiS ZOO dne upon Ger lin second mort
gage bonds alleged to have been issued and sold
by sand railroad company aud applied to the
Cors rue ion end opt rat. on OF it, read. and to
toreCloSe the mortgage upon n the PROF erty
and ranch SEES 81 sold COMPANY ALLEGED TO have
been eNscutei by sail company 10 plaintiff as
trustee 10 secure the payment % said bonds.
There was PRAYER tor the appointment of q
reCe yer. and receivers were appointed take
charg OF and operate Inc mortgaged property
under the di- ection OF the court dur ng the en-.
deney OF The case: PRAYER for ju 'gment Tor
and sale Of the properly to isfr such judg-
ment. aud for costs OF suit and general and spe-
The defendant company on Sertember 20. 1872
answered by genera demurrer anu general de-
On September 1851. the state of Texas was
by order of the court permitted to intervene in
said nit.
Admitted as party 20 the acti-7 the state by
its Plea OF in erventi n cha lenEed :he validity
of tn" mortgage and bonds sue! on, tor various
r.asons: prayed that they each ID cancciei;
that the owners AMI holue"s ue prohibited from
negotiating them: that tho grafton and its
receivers be restrained from paying them; and
FOR general ana special rcl.et
On Septe NJ lei the lSth. $50. plaintiff G ed
cepticns 10 The states plea of Intervention and
we'd 10 strike il out
On Ft bruary IS, 1870. The court, uron a hear
ing IF paint f.. exceptions and motion to strike
GU, he states plea IN ervention, overru!ed
the same and Permitted the state 10 remain a
party to the action.
he case was thereupou continued to the fall
term. 1888.
On october e. 1890 he cage being called for
trial. plain' if moved lie court 10 take nom
suit. which was by the cpuri permitted, adjudg-
inV he aiutiff TO Fay all costs of the proceed
lng and all The other parties to go hence without
then md there objected ana protested. and
astec to be heard on its plea of intervention,
which being refused the state excepted and in
oren curt gave notice OF appeal TO the supreme
court of Texas. & ed its bill of executions and
assignment OF errors. mi now brings the case
to this court Tor revision.
ARGUMENT.
The first question to be considered here is,
dill the cnu below commit error in permit
ting laintin to take a nonsuit over the pro ests
and objections of the intervenor? Adhcring 10
the strict language of the statute. which. when
so pla MY written every litigant should have the
right 10 rely on with i'm. !icit confidence for his
protection. there can he do ubt but that the
court violates the law in di missing the case.
II expressly says that At any time before the
jury have retired plsint:H NAV take a ronsuit
but shall not thereby prejuiice the -ixht of an
adverse party 10 be heard on his claim for affirm
alive relief. The claim for atti NATIVE relie.'
referred to in the taute is not defined nor linn
tied 10 any particular conditions. A nlaintif
can take his nonsuit, but IF there is
CAIN Cor ffirmative relief by an ad-
verse party, his right TO have that claim
heard and determined by the court in that case
ought net TO be denied in the face OF express
statute. The facts. when developed before the
fury or the court. would sstt4e .he ansstioa 70