The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1899-07-26
THE PETITION DISMISSED.
No Receiver Appointed for the Ches
apealxc Beach Railway.


apeake Beach Railway.
In dismissing the petition of Ambrose c.
Dunn for receiver for the Chesapeake
Beach Railway, in equity court yesterday,
Justice Bradley stated that the court had
dignifed the application by giving it as
much consideration as he had, but that
careful study had been necessary in order
TO arrive at the opinion which he had pre-
pared
Dunn filed suit about two weeks ago ask
ing for receiver for and accounting OF the
Chesapeake Beach Railway Company, own
ers of line running from Washington to
Chesapeake Beach, in Maryland, and the
Chesapeake Bay Construction Company, the
latter concern being the contractor for hav-
ing formerly been the contractor for build
ing the road. He also named as defend
ant Mr.. Otto Mears, the president of both
companies. In his complaint Mr.. Dunn
made rather sensational charges, alleging
reckless and extravasant expenditures of.
money and the faulty construction of a rail-
road, all of which he attributed to the
usurpation of his power by Mr.. Mears The
petitioner claimed a one-third interest in
the profits OF the construction company and
sought TO secure control of the railroad
company, which subsequently succeeded
the construction company in executing its
contracts.
Mr.. Mears answered for all parties in
volved, submitting an affidavit showing
that while Dunn had been a charter mem
Der of the construction company his in
terest therein had lapsed, because Of fail
ure to contribute any money whatever into
the concern. He further stated that while
Mr.. Dunn had contributed $685. toward
deposit of 81, coo made for the purchase of
certain stock, this had been repaid him.
pTh oil rhn ffa1 II, No
supplied by Mr.. Mears and his associates
Regarding the necessity Of receiver Mr.
Mears submitted a statement of the affairs
of the railway company showing that while
nearly $1,000, 900 had been expended in the
construction and equipment OF the road
the entire outstanding Indebtedness con-
sisted of current expenses which arose
since the last pay day, two weeks prior to
the hearing He further submitted an affi-
davit which set forth that Mr.. Dunn had
attempted to multiply litigation during the
tendency OF his application for a receiver
and had offered to pay the expenses OF
suits If certain persons would begin action
for the purpose Of helping along his case
To these persons, the affidavit states, Mr.
Dunn also promised certain things when he
was appointed receiver for the road.
In disposing OF the case Justice Bradley
read lengthy opinion in which he termed
the course of Dunn as most extraordinary
He stated that upon the petitioners own
showing he had not invested one dollar in
either company, but nevertheless sought to
have receiver appointed, and as for his
exclusion from the books and participation
in the affairs of the railroad company. the
court thought such exclusion was very
proper.
Before going into the merits OF the case
Justice Bradley stated that he was clearly
of the opinion that both companies were
out of the Jurisdiction OF his court as the
construction company was a Colorado cor
poration doing business in Maryland and
the railway company Maryland corpora
ton doing business in that State. He fur
Their held that as the railway company
had outstanding stocks and bonds the
holders of the same were very much con-
cerned in any disposition of the railway
that he might make and would have to
be represented in court If claim was to
be prosecuted against their property
In summing up the case Justice Brad
ley held that there was not a scratch OF
pen to show that Dunn had any interest
whatever in either concern except his
original agreement with Mr.. Mears TO or
ganize the construction company, and
from this it was perfectly proper that he
should have been dropped out when the
others contributed the funds and he pald
IN nothing.
Answering the charges of faulty con-
structlon and mismanagement, Attorney
Frederick d. Mckinney, appearing for
Mr.. Mears, argued that it was an auda-
cious attempt to injure the railroad which
was about completed and ready for opera
ton and also to injure the personal credit
Of Mr.. Mears among financiers, by whom
he was held in high esteem. The road,
Mr.. Mckinney stated, was as well con-
structed as any line of similar length in
the country, and the attorney declares
that the purposes of such allegations in
the complaint were apparent and would
never have been made by one who had
any interest in the property.