The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-05-04
BELATED INJUNCTION SUIT.
DarnelI's Grievance on Ac-
count of Street ImproYinr.

Catharine Darnell's on Ac-
count of Street Improving.
About the time the various street-railway
interests in this city were passing into the
hands Of one corporation yesterday suit was
brought in the Circuit Court to prevent the
City Railway Company's franchise being
surrendered in accordance with the terms
or the city's contract with the indianapolis
Street-railway Company. The suit was
brought by Attorneys Harding & Hovey
and Mccullough & Reinhard, representing
Catharine Darnell. The plaintiff asked the
court TO appoint a receiver for the City
Railway Company.
The plaintiff charged in her complaint
that when the City Company was granted
a franchise 1t was provided that the COM
pany should do certain street paving or
reimburse the property owners who should
do it. The plaintiff. believing the money
would be refunded. paid an assessment of
$3.50 for street paving. She averred that the
City Company's franchise was still in force.
ing Its tracks. The plaintiffs property is
situated on North Illinois street. The COM
plant set up the allegation that the fran
was worth $2,0O0.Oo. The whole amount of
capital stock paid in by stockholders in the
City Company was only about $4,000, IL was
~ 0Ao NAAS biAtA CAalN that III
company was insolvent. The complaint as
serted that should the franchise be surren-
dered there would be no property subject
10 judgments. 1t was averred that the pay
ment for the franchise was to be made
wholly in stocks and obligations of the In
dianapolis Street-railway Company TO the
poraticn as soon as il secured the fran
chise OF the City Company proposed TO
place a sO,0o.0o mortgage on its property.
or the value OF the property. The plaintiff
was or the opinion that q receiver should
be appointed at once before the only valu-
able property OF the City Company was
disposed Of. Tbs complaint also requested
the court TO restrain the Indianapolis Street.
siderafion to any one else than the CITY
Company for Its franchise. With the COM
plaint was fled a set of i-nterrogatories for
what the authorized capital stock Of the
City Company was when IL was organized.
how much was actually issued and TO whom
II was Issued. Also whether a record was
kept OF the stock issued and where IL may
be found. Another interrogatory asked who
the present stockholders are and how much
they own. The plaintiff wants 10 know who
the officers are. what stock they AVE held
and whether. Morgan Randall has owned
any stock, Further information is desired
as 10 whether or not there was a meeting
of the stockholders to consider the surren.
der OF the franchise.
The City Railway Company. Randall Nor.
gan, OF Philadelphia the indianapolis
Street-railway Company and the city OF In
dianapolis were made defendants 10 the
suit. There was no attempt TO get a TEN.
porary restraining order yesterday. The at
torneys for the plaintiff said they expected
the defendants TO file an answer 10 the COM
plant within ten days. They say that the
fact hat the franchise of the City Com
pany has already been surrendered Will not
deter them from prosecuting the suit on its
merits. City Attorney Kern said last night
that there was nothing I'm the suit" He
thought the defendants would probably file
q demurrer TO the complaint.
Attorney Harding says he thjAks some one