Red Lodge picket. [volume] (Red Lodge, Mont.) 1889-1907, 1895-07-06
ESTATE NOT LIABLE
Leland Stanford's Heirs Saved
Fifteen Millions.
ROSS MAKESADECiSION
Le:ltFai Pacific Railroad Conn;.nx- N..,.s.r
Really Promised TO Pay Sack
Borrowed Money.

san Francisco, June 23.-United State
circuit Judge Ross rendered his de
clslon on the demurrer OF Mrs. lane T
stanford against the suit OF the GOV
ernment to recover SIS, ,0o0, ,0Q0 from tn,
estate OF her late husband The de
nuffer was sustained. Judge Ross a
lowed the government to amend its
former complaint and re-argue it's case
IL 1t SO desired. 1t was intimated, how
ever, that this step would not affect
| the case, the law as construed bv Judge
| Ross not faVoring the case of the United
/ States.
Inc sustaining of the demurrer was
surprise, the attorneys generally ey-
pectlng contrary decision.
Inc court began by reading and ex-
plalh1nS the acts and statutes, both
state and federal, which had any bear
| ing on the construction of the Central
racine fallroad and its branches. All
falIfoacs west Of the Missouri river
were, he said, constructed under the
same acts, so If one railroad was liah1
10 the government, all We're liable. In
n@a1ly all OF the corpora tions Leland
stanford was stockholder Together
with u t. Huntington and other in
COL lpofators, he owned 1870, $50 shares of
STOCK. Inc government, according r.
It's contract, issued bonds to aid in the
construction of this road. Though the
foad was built under that contract. =
was Incorporated under the laws of this
state. Therefore, it became in a wax
a1henable' to the laws of California. The
laws OF California providing that stock
holders OF corporations are individually
responsible for debts contracted h,
thelr companies, he held, did not affect
otanford, as the government claimed
lof the reason that the stoclzho1dar
inability acts were passed after The GOV |
efhment had made it's contract win
the Central Pacific II those laws b3d /
been passed before the goy4rp,na,,t |
bonded the Central Pacific. .oveva, il !
would have made no difference as t,,n
governments intention was not mimi
test OF making the stockholders Of rail
'oads it bonded personally rasnonsfhil
-of the debts contracted by tha com
)any 1'At
HAD A NATIONAL TONE
The Central Pacific. the ,on,.r ol,,
inues, had something of = na+ional
one 10 1t. When it was conta0nIata,}
he country was in a state of furyooi1
ne government wanted quick comn,nn-
cation between the Atlantic ana +ha
'acl1lc oceans. At that time tha hui,9-
t6 % tAe fSiilfoad was great under
ahlng-1n undertaking too yas7 fnt :
d.V ehtefpfise, SO the government.
i orueF 10 assist in the work, issued
ne polds ana IL this way made the /
abroad builders practically agents of
ne United States.
IL was very plain that in case the 9
abroad did not pay the bonds upGn
Latuilty that the secretary Of the treas c
~ mas the power to take pos session of :
ie roads. The bonds are Identical With /
first mortgage.
Did the company who became in
ebted to the United States promise b
repay the money!" asked the court v
Inc statute on this point is not very s.
>pllclf, which is to be very much re- Il
'etted," said the judge. "A promise y y
only implied. There was no explicit \
unqualified agreement between the h
fpofaton and the government. RI 81
10 be observed that the lands and h
mas were not to be delivered to the it
mpany until the road was equipped te
ere IS found promise, but it is an g
quall1led promise to repay the money. =
le government had no intention, Of ~
aklng these men individually resp0n r.
lie, said Judge Ross. "That question NJ
yer entered into the contract. The
Venant did not stipulate that the T.
'ckholders should repay the bonds.
e acceptance of the bonds was an -
pied act of the stockholders to nav
7n. The stockholders accepted tho
5istance of the government with the n
reement that they Should nav for II 80
at was all. sc
There are no common law liabilities. cIs
e state law fixes the liability %
ckholders in proportion to th,. ms
iount of stock they possess. That in:
v however, can not be held to apply "a
this case, as it was passed s1bsequeu- - =,
the making Of the government CON 80
ct with the Central Pacific company.
e real question involved is whether ~
re was a contract between the de-
dant and plaintiff and whether there We
s a liability proyiso Pevertiner to
visions in the laws of the United 49,
ties there can be fund no s1ci I.1 I'i'
cement The statutes do not hold bic
defendants liable. There is abso- tfe
ely nothing to establish this fact ha
l I sustain the demurrer and give sa
plaintiff the power to amend" con on
ded Judge Ross mi
tanford University, Cal, June 90 pee
ere was great rejoicing at the Stan Of
university when the news was re- noe
Ted that Judge Ross had sustained
demurrer in the case of the govern OR
at against the Stanford estate.
r. Jordan, when interviewed, said: .I iW
TX the decision virtually settles the
ility Of the property which Mr.. and /
J. Stanford designed for the university. the
ne tle case may De appealed. 1t is not Vol
ny that the oeclslon OF Judge Ross sur
De reversed. pas