The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1892-12-29
The c. & n. Dissolution.

AT. " II. SOliits III isbb wcch . uu$tuc
had the following card:
There are some errors from inadvert.
ence in the railroad, statement in this
weeks Ners Herald. The assessment on
stock holders in Galley suit was more
than enough to pay the judgments and
costa, 90 that not only were the amounts
almost, but they were entirely realized.
There was no compromise with Judge
Thompson. His claim was thrown out
not only in Common Pleas Court, but on
appeal in the Circuit Court, and was
taken no futher, and he agreed to no
compromise, for none was offered him.
The decree in the suit OF Caily is final.
ity and neither Judge Thompson or the
Receiver can collect q dollar from the
stockholders who were released in that
decree. All the stockholders were be-
fore the Court. Some were held and
others released. The decree is final and
. bar, and no one but creditor has the
right under our statute to enforce the
statutory liability of stockholders. The
paper authorizing Judge Thompson to
have the corporation dissolved was not
the effect Of compromise, but was
agreed to and signed by parties repEe-
sented BY me At my request and with
the understanding that ii anything was
left after paying judgments in Galley
case We were willing Judge Thompson
might. have ii. and not with view that
we we're authorizing suits for contri.
button against Mr.. Boardman and many
others who were released in the Galley
case. We wanted to get rid OF the cor.
poration 10 that there could be no pos.
sibility OF any more debts being con.
tracted or any further opportunity for
litigation. Supposins the corporation
utterly without assets, and expecting
the referee 70 so find, we saw no neces.
sity for Receiver, who is necessarily
only nominally one as there is nothing
to receive, Having tried in the Galley
case to have every stockholder assessed
and the Court having found those who
were liable, would have no hesitation
in defending any stockholder who was
released and pleading the bar OF the
decree in the Galley case.
G. H. COLLINS.
1t is but proper to state that Judge
Evans decree itself contains nothing
justifying the collection byJudge1homp.
son OF tho money due from stockholders
who have not paid the 36% assessment
ordered in tho Galley case. 1t is simply
decree dissolving the G. & N. com.
pany aud ordering distribution of the
money in the clerks hands.
Our statements last week were based
entirely on the papers and Referees re-
port in the case and the errors,if any, are
oharseatle to an incorrect statement OF
the facts there. It is stated specifically
that Jadge Thompson's claim sgainst the
road having been disallowed, he wa
about to carry the matter to the Supreme
Court when he and certain tockholders,
who had paid the assessment, "entered
into q compromise Of his claim and in
consideration that he, ]. H. Thompson
agreed TO institute and prosecute these
proceedings for final dissolution and to
pay all costa and expenses that might
be incurred in these proceedings apd to
accept and receive whatever sums he
might recover from their co stock kholders
under their several contributory rights
of action against such stockholders who
had not paid the several amounts ad-
judged against them by thee CircuitC Court,
and also those stockholders who had
not been assessed to pay any per cent. on
their stock in satisfaction of said judg
ment in said Circuit Court"
The matter is of but little importance,
as it is not thought probable That Judge
Thompson can collect any great amount
Of the unpaid assessments, even if there
existed such compromise and agree.
ment as is mentioned in the report.
but there is some curiosity manifested al
to whether it did exist or not. The re-
port says it did; Mr.. Collins and q
number OF others who signed the paper
claim that 1t contained no. such recog'
milton of Judge Thompson's claim ol
agreement as 10 how he was to receive
his compensation