Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-05-26
HYER-TRACTION SUIT.
THE SUPREME COURT ORDERS A
WRIT OF CERTIoRARL.
WILL Be DECIDED IN OCTOBER.
CompIninant's Petition Granted on
Monday-Importnncc of the a"es-
lions IuxoIxed-Diyergenc of the
Judges-History of the Case.

United States Supreme Court on MONDAY
x,os ana of interest to this community
to-wit. its action in the case OF H. H.
IIyer against the Richmond 1rac'ioh
Company and others, in which IL orueieu
81 writ OF certiorari requiring the Ch''eu
States Circuit Court of Appeals TO certily
the records in that case for final deterH'-
nation and decision by the Supreme court
Hyer's petition relates al the circum-
stances connected with his acquiring
from the City Council Of Richmond the
rights TO build street railway, his de-
oosit OF the sum of $4,000 as a guarantee
of good faith, his subsequent meeting
and negotiations with Mr.. Philip H.
SHIELD I'm New York, and his agreement
with him, &c.
THE CASE IN THE COURTS.
Hyer's petition further alleges that ne
published his contract in Richinohu
paper before the final passage of the oral
nance. and also gave the fullest notce
practicable of his rights to all parties
whom he knew. or had ascertained TO be
interested and filed his bill i'm the United
States Circuit Court, making the Irac-
ton Company, Philip B. SAeild. ana
others. parties defendant, and asking
specific execution OF his contract ana
enforcement OF his rights hereunder
His bin was afterwards amended, settlhs
forth the execution of the Traction COM
pany's mortgage upon its property SUD-
sequent to the fling of its first DILL as
sailing the validity Of this mortgage ana
the stock subscription, and asking that
the Traction franchise. in which he claim
ed n half interest, should be disencum-
bere6 of the burdens put upon IT by these
,r. ceilings and repeating the prayer Oh
his first bill. HyeTs biz was after
wards amended third lime by leave OF
court The defendants demurred TO each
and all OF these bills and TO the Dill III
its last amended form assigned ten
grounds of demurrer. The cause was
heard upon the last amended bhl ana
The demurrer thereto, and of the ten
grounds of demurrer. Judge Golf over
ruled the first three sustained the fourth,
and did not pass upon the remaining SIX
Judge Goff held that Hyers remedy, IL
any was properly i'm court OF equity,
but that the contract between Hyer ana
SHIELD was contrary to public poDcy,
and upon this ground he dismissed all
Uyer's bills with costs.
From this decree Hyer appealed TO the
Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case
was argued at the February term before
ur. Chief-Justice Fuller. Circuit-Jutge
Simonton, and District-Judge BraWIey.
on May 18th an order was entered, OF
which the following is an extract:
Council in this case are requested 10
furnish the court with briefs directed 10
the question whether the complainant
below has not a plain. adequate, ana com
plete remedy at law. if any he has. win
leave TO add such additional observations
on the case generally as they may De
advised"
on May 18th a decree was rendered by
the Circuit Court of Appeals aihrming
Judge COTS decision In the Circuit court
sustaining the demurrer and dlsmissins
Hyer's bills with costs.
Judge simonton filed n written opinion
concurring with Judge Golf in holding the
contract between Hyer and SHIELD 10 be
contrary to public policy, and therefore
void but Judge smonton neld Hyer
remedy, if'any, TO be at Jaw, while Judge
Golf held the suit properly brought In
court of equity.
Judge Brawley dissented in an opinion
from which Hyer's petition to the Su-
preme Court makes lengthy extracts.
IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTIONS.
Upon the entry of this decree Of the
Circuit Court OF Appeals affirming Judge
Cons decision and Diminishing all his bills
with costs, Hyer, having no right OF APP
peal therefrom, presented ms petition 10
the Supreme Court of the United states
asking for a writ of certiorari requiring
the Circuit Court of Appeals TO certify
up the entire record in the cause to the
Supreme Court for its review and determi-
nation. This petition sets forth the fol-
lowing as the meritorious grounds upon
which II appeals for the writ:
IL Is not contended that both these ques-
tions are of such general interest as 10
reuuire or deserve review by this great
tribunal. Whether In any particular
case the remedy be at law or in equity
IS ordinarily a question which concerns
that case and its ltigants only; but the
public-policy defence presented by this
record is of very great interest and i'm
portance at once TO the general public
and 10 the legislative ana judicial depart
ments of every city and state IN the
Union, and OF the General Government
as well-and that in a couble aspect-to-
wit:
/. Whether ii be necessarily contrary
70 public policy for rival applicants for
a legislative charter or franchise 10 unite,
and agree 10 ask the grant OF The fran
chise TO them jointly, going openly be-
fore the legislative body and making a
operation?
And If the above be answered in the
affirmative, then
2 Whether, after a contract contrary
to public policy has been consummated,
and the franchise or other benefit con-
templated In such contract has been Sc
cured, and one party has appropriated
all the benefit, and the other seeks JUS
tice at the hands Of the court and a fair
division; whether. We say--under such cir
cumstances-a court OF equity and OF con-
science wiz entertain and approve the
plea OF the wrong-doer. that the original
contract was Immoral and Invalid?
petitioner submits that elaborate and
emphatic statement can add nothing TO
the gravity and general interest of these
great questions. III Is clear beyond dis
pute that their importance calls for re-
view by this honorable court. ana fully
3ustifies the issue OF the writ OF certio-
rari TO the honorable Circuit Court OF
Appeals for the Fourth Judicial Circuit"
Upon this petition the Supreme Court
granted the writ applied for. which takes
the entire case into that court Cor its
determination at the next October term.
ot,aa of "a haa