New-York tribune., 1899-06-14
STEWART "HEIRS LOSE.
SCOTT DECLARES TWO ACTIONS
BAsELEss AND vEXATIOUs.

Alexander Stewart who says he is one OF tne
heirs 10 the property OF Alexander T. stewart, ana
Mary Agnes Carroll. his niece and another claim
ant TO the estate were defeated BY decision haho-
ed down by Justice Scott, in the Supreme court
Yesterday in which he dismissed the actions
brongb, hv then, 10 eject Helen C Butler Prescott
Hall Butler Maxwell E. Butler Cornelius ste~sr
Butler and the Manhattan Club from the Stewart
mansion, at FIfth-ave and Thirty-fourth-st.
Stewart contends that A. T. Stewart died int'stass
on April TO- 1875 although his VIII was aimitteo
probate by the Surrogate in this county the 50 Ne
year. He says his father cousin OF the ner-
chant Mary Agnes Carroll alleges that her mother
a sister OF the plaintiff in the other action ana
that she died some time ago Both. as heirs-at-ia~
OF Alexander T Stewart brought suits in ejectmcnt
TO the Stewart mansion.
Alexander Stewart is an old claimant for the
property. and. though he alleges that ne was CT
age when A. T. Stewart died he did not begin his
litigation until 1871. when he brought suit In
ejectment 10 recover possession OF the premises
No IS East Thirty -fourth-st from Henry Hilton
This suit was brought in the Court OF Common
Pleas. and the complaint dismissed by Justice
Pryor. The plaintiff brought new suit under the
statute which was dismissed by Justice DAILY. and
he appealed from the decision.
No proceedings were taken by him TO prose ute
this appeal and the motion OF Evarts. Choate
q Beaman. attorneys for the legal heirs under Mr.
Stewards WILL his appeal dismissed because os
his failure print the papers on appeal.
He then began the present action through Hart &
Hopkins his lawyers
Prescott Hall Butler moved 10 compel the plain
tins attorneys to produce and file their authority
10 bring these actions, and moved 20 dismiss the
complaints the ground that the actions were
vexatious and clearly without merit. and were not
brought In good faith but solely endeavor
10 extract money from the defendant the price
OF peace. and that the plaintiffs irresponsible
Prescott Hall Butler in his affidavit pointed out
that although Stewart did not state the value OF his
interest In the Stewart mansion. he claimed $1,000
for alleged unlawful Withholding OF the properly
from him He then referred TO the facts In connec-
ton with Stewards former suit. and said this
action and its companion by the Carroll girl were
attempts by the so-called Stewart heirs to
obtain possession OF Alexander 7. Stewards prop
erty on the theory that he had died intestate. de-
spite the fact that his will was probated and that
he devised this property 10 his widow, Cornea II.
Stewart
Justice Scott says there is no question as to the
power OF the Court under the Code OF Civil Pro-
cedure 20 grant the application to compel Stewards
attorneys TO show their authority for bringing the
suits. The second branch OF the motion for the
dismissal Of the actions requires more considers
ton II appeals TO the inherent power of the
Court TO exercise sufficient efficient control over
every proceeding 10 protect efectualy every person
actually interested in the result from injustice op-
preston or fraud and to prevent the Court itself
and It's process from being made an instrument Of
wrong. He says IT is true that statutory power
OF this kind exists 10 dismiss a complaint because
1t is clearly frivolous malicious in this State but
this fact alone is answer the inherent right Of
the Court. 1t has been done several times he says
in England. and ne then quotes a number OF i'm
portant English decisions on the subject. Dealing
with the Stewart action he says:
II is alleged by the defendants end is not denied
5y the plaintiff that this action is brought IN bad
cess with full information on the part OF the plain
TN and his attorneys that the plaintiff was In
the said Stewart left a viii and testament which
gG pTGves @ 0etofe rg 5he b o, ms
for the sole purpose OF annoying and harassing the
TO pay sum Of money A 10 buy tber pesee az raSer
than submit to vexatious and expensive litigation
one on his Behalf submit any afdayits contgovert.
Ing any allegation OF the defendants afidavits.
tlnct terms with having brought an action in bad
faith. and as mere blackmailing scheme. he does
not even swear to its bona hdes. BY his silence ne
stands before this Court as admitting that he has
brought oaseless action for which he knows there
is no foundation, in the hope alone OF extorting
money from the defendants.
OF course. the mere fact that the complaint In
Of proof is not Of itself conclusive that upon the
trial Of this action sufficient proof may not be pro-
duced but i is Significant that the plaintiff does
not aliege that he has any other or further evil
dsnis y hqn II. that which Re PE0duced upon the tvo
But even more significant is the fact that al
tnOugn ne mas Deen doIe TO f1nd attorneys bring
this action and counsel TO argue against the dis
mssal II the complaint. ne produced no affidavit or
certno-ta from any counsel that he believes that
the piatiN has In fact a cause Of action
Cpon the face OF the complaint II appears that
Alexander T. Stewart died more than twenty years
ago. anc chat the plaintiff then OF full age
which at once suggests the obvious defence 10 any
claim which the plaintiff may ever have had vet he
offers no hint or suggestion to how he expects
70 avoid the inevitable defence that the statute Of
lirnta tons stands bar any recovery
Upon the presented by the affidaytts Z
cannot escape the conclusion that this is a base
less. vexatous and harassing action begun with no
hope or expectation Of ultimate success but only
In the hope that the defendants may find II aser
and cheaper to buy of the plaintiff and his AZ.
torneys than 10 test the action. To such action
the Court should lend countenance, but in nv
opinion. exercise its inherent power 10 refuse 10
PERMIT the action 10 proceed. The motion will be
granted with 80 costs.
Justice Scott dsposes Of the Carroll action in the
same manner