New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-09-10
RQDNZAM-
BSaaSinnE Powder
Absolutely Fssre
VERMILYE & co. LOSE.
THE CITY BOND LIrIGATIoN DECIDED i'
MR.. COLER'S FAVOR.

TWO u-sTIcEs or THE SUPREME COURT REF 81
70 rNIoIN AND To MANDAMtS TIE '"N
rr,,,,p * rur syvDIcATE'S BEHALF.
-r,o ,,ritca.icns made in tho supreme 'o"' ~
,-orr,irve & 60 for injunctions resii''n'S IN"
To- foler from awarding the lsHu" W - I,
amounting To S2CsN'C0. 70 any P''S'" .ta..
,9fe eXcepi Ncrmi,yc 4 20 were u'''.' - ,
49, r,s,i.e cohen Justice Beekman also ''''''
motion hy Vermllye & Co for "rf 81 P~1 ,ha
mandamus to compel N" 'ontr""e' ~
bonds 70 them o. 81, t,oo NJ
NTH, q 90 who MD $40 o3 for eacu S'' ~
tte total i.ele contendod that tncF "''' -
est bidders for the bonds. The fr'duc' 'I ,'nto,
Trust company hid for the "hoie ISSUE o. =,
for each Issue Vermilye & CO. noW''''.
= condition If their hid thar the LEGALITY " ,''
,,,.. ga. 70 h. PASSED upon nv their r'VA'r ,ou''
81 rbi. Controller Coler hel to re 'o"''''
hid and therefore void On this GROUND ne 80
-, entertain tho Did. and decided 10 a"''' Nv y,ar
n The Produce Exchans" Trust COMPANY
njive & 60 then instituted no md"''''"N "
junction proceedings
u-sTrcE BEEKMAN's oPGNloN'
r,s,,c. Reekman. in denying the app"''.''" ,rnr,
the r,andamus ycs'erday. Sald' " ar -o,,roller
" 80 ,-,,,ring aefdavts Of me '"i''''
cha, sine. the order 70 sho" cause .oo,, in
..rs,tod no mas made award of we 80 .,,orv
-.,o -, tho Produce Exchange lr"S' =,
-. 80, 60, Tho entire issue was less wa" | 9
,,a reti,icrers Vermilye co ana N".,'' H. ,hot
"a Tho reason given n him for NJ ,or
,ho hid ~ tho latter was wholly void IN VIA,
tanned qualification not an'''o'''I .t,ec, N
100, IN, tho words. our bid is maze Su'|'0'
o..,l = tho legality ~ the issues pS 'u'
..,,...i, II thi. determination on his part -,
80, ,ha, no had 4 rent to refuse 70 coi''' 49,.
h,d and ~ make the award. as no mas no"7' ha.
produce Exchange Trust Compahf' VIII" "
event Wa The highest ol0''i , o,o nm,
Tho ,uo non involved Is an Interesting one Wv
-. -. Conclusion n which 7 have come
80, r,,rdanus should not issue. for reasons
.,a ,r,-, tho n,e-ifs of the case. y "oN'u not '
,,1,or fo~ mo % express my opinion with r'spe''
IN ,ra VALIDITY NJ the bid I'm question "'''''''
t,r,re on any oN'onled DISCUSSION d me
,,han nc Couri Wiil giant mama anus ' -
=, . O., uoio,ont n refer % the "a OF mo rhd'''
Of N. Hilton Bridge Construction COMPANY WIZ"
Seem. 20 he quite IN point and therefore 10 o. 'o
,o,ei ,.oa,.yer question might h" raised a. 70 Tvs
soundness ,,.,o,
I,-,tc. Reekmar cites the points ~ this decision
and continues IN thc case cited me WIZ VIZ
withheld because the party 20 whom no AWARD Wa
m, de Nae NOT party ihe preceding, ana Nhon''
ro, ,ner.for. n. subjected 20 adverse decision
o.ifhotl' notice or an opportunity 20 u' h"'i =. ~
,he cas-, ~ t,r tho Produce Exchange IrH-' 'om
~. -, ,,,.' 30, ,V-trJ OF tho city stock ~ qi"s-
fi,r has been made by be Controller 81 NOT p', =
20 ri. pro'e' ding ana HPoa ne n,t,sr ~ the
Triton Eride, CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. mani'm'~
sn"uli mo- ISSUE mere
THE QUESTION or PRIVATE NSEL
Justice cohen in denying tho application of Yer
nIly" 4 eco rdf an frIuuction restraining i"e con
tr1ier from ,7ardinR the bonds 20 an persons
other than taem-el-os. says The Who'll" contr0-
,.-av turns upon fhe meaning of mo words IN law.
our nd Is subject ~ me approval ~ the issue ny
orr counsel ~ they import q condition OF term
into rho plai,,lH's ~ other than that witch the
ltgn