Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-12-29
AFTER TWO MILLIONS.
Minority Stockholders Try to Recover
From ]. B. Ford e. Co.
A BIG CORPORATION ACTION.
Inspector Whitehouse Must Fay His Wife
S. a Week.
DOINGS OFADAYIN THE COUNTY COURTS

An important argument was begun in the
United States Circuit Court yesterday be.
fore Judge Acheson, which will probably
consume the greater portion of the present
week 1t is the case of Samuel f. Barr, OF
Maine, and others against j. B. Ford s. Co.
and the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company and
involves between s., ,000 600 and s., ,000, 900.
Nearly 5000 pages of printed testimony
was taken before the commissioner in the
case and the arguments begun yesterday are
upon this great mass of evidence. S. c.
Schover and w. II. Errett are representing
the plaintiffs; ID. T. Watson, j. b. Ford &
Co., and Dalzell, Scott & Gordon, the Pitts
burg Plate Glass Company. Both sides
were pretty well represented when Mr..
Schoyer opened his speech.
The BILL which was filed in 1889, alleges
that the Tarentum Plate Glass Works were
built at cost to J. b. Ford & Co. of $3.50,
600, and that they got 81, 100000 worth of
stock at par, which was actually worth $50
share, thus making within $4,000 of a
sufficient amount to pay for the works. On
the works at Ford City they got $3.50, 900
worth of bonds and $3.50, 600 worth of stock,
the premium on which was S65 share. The
cost of the works at Ford City is not so well
known, but it is alleged that it did not cost
more than $4,000, so that, considering the
dividends they have received, which ranged
from u to 25 per cent, the defendants are
alleged to have made over S2c000OO.
The plaintiffs ask that the Court decree J.
B. Ford & Co., to account for the actual cost
of the construction of the two works and
turn them over to the Pittsburg Plate Glass
Company at the cost price, allowing them
the usual contractors profit for building
them. The firm composing J. b. Ford 4 Co.
at the time they built the works were direc-
tors OF the Pittsburg Plate Glass Company,
and held a majority of the stock. There
were but five directors, and four of them
were IN the firm of j. B. Ford 4 Co., leaving
John Scott as the sole director who was not
interested in the other company.
When the Taren tum works were built the
minority stockholders manifested a DISPOSE
tion to buy it, knowing that J. b. Ford Co.
were the directors of the Pittsburg Plate
Glass Company and was acquainted with the
trade and how much it cost TO manufacture
the glass. The new mills were constructed
with more approved machinery, the facto-
ries were better adapted for making glass
than the Creighton works, and they thought
it was to their interest to buy them. The
only consideration under which j. b. Ford
& Co. would sell was at their own figure, so
that the minority stockholders were COM
PEELED to buy in order to wipe out danger
Gus competitor.
Mr.. Schoyer spent the entire day elaborat-
ing on these facts as alleged in the bill and
the testimony, and based his request for the
decree on the principle that J. b. Ford II Co.,
as trustees for the PiutsDurg Plate Glass
Company, had no right to build competing
works to their own profit, as against the
interests of the company of which they
were directors.
Ii the decree is granted as requested it
will have the effect of compelling j. b. Ford
& Co. to pay back into the treasury of the
Pittsburg Plate Glass Company a sum of
money equal to the amount which they re-
ceived in excess of the cost of the two
plants. Mr.. Schoyer will continue his argu-
ment to-day.