Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-03-13

When He WAS Scared-CarneEie
the Only Member of the Concern
That Never Lost Confidence.
PITTSBURG, Pa, March 12.-Late
this afternoon the answer of the Car
negie Steel Company, limited. defend
ant in the equity suit of H. c. Prick to
determine the value of his holdings in
said company, was filed in Common
Pleas Court No. /.
The answers filed are for the Carne-
gle Steel Company, limited, and the
thirty individual defendants below
named:
The Carnegie Steel Company, limit
ed, Andrew Carnegie, G. M. Schwab,
Thomas Morrison, James Gayley, w.
w. Blackburn, ]. Ogden Hoffman,
James Scott, w. E. Corey, L. T. Brown,
H. J. Lindsay, H. E. Tener, Jr., w. B..
Dickson, John Mcleod, A. R. Hunt, P.
T. Berg, L. C. Phipps, w. H. Singer,
D M. Clemson, A. M. Moreland, John
c. Fleming, George E. McCague, H. P.
Bope, Joseph E. Schwab, D. G. Kerr,E
F. Wood, g. D. Packer, A. G. Case, G.
w. Baker, A. C. Dinkey, Charles Nc
Creepy.
The other individual defendants are
as follows:
Henry Phipps, j., George Lauder,
(now in Europe), H. M. Curry, (sick)
A. R. Peacock, (now in California;, F.
T. F. Lovejoy, (who has already an
swered), George H. Wightman, (now
in Florida), Charles Taylor, (now in
California;, A. R. Whitney, (now in
California;, Willard Hunsiker, (now in
London), George Megrew.
The document complete makes
nearly 10000 words, meeting every
averment of the plaintiff in fullest de-
tail:
An abstract of the bill follows:
1t is denied that Andrew Carnegie
and others named in the plaintiffs bill
during April, May and June, 1892, ex-
ecuted articles of association for the
Carnegie Steel Company, Limited, but
they did subscribe to an amendment of
the original certificate, under which
Carnegie Brothers, Limited, had been
organized as a limited partnership as
ISOLATION. Said amendment was not
for the purpose of creating a new part
nership or new partnership associa-
ton, but for modifying the terms of
the original certificate.
At meeting of the shareholders,
March %, 1892, at which the plain
tiff, H. C. Frick, was present, a reso-
luton was passed providing for such
an amendment, and committee. con-
sisting of III. c.. Frick, H. M. Curry
and F. T. F. Lovejoy, was appointed
to carry out the details of a general
plan which had been outlined. MIR.
Frick was the principal actor on that
committee. At a shareholders meet
ing, July /, 1892, the committee,
through Mr.. Prick, submitted the
amended certificate, with the state
ment that it had been duly signed and
executed by every member, and had
been recorded. Upon Mr. Tricks mo-
ton, said amendment was approved
and adopted. If there was any de-
feet in said articles as plaintiff now
AYERS, he is primarily responsible for
such in not properly and in good faith
directing the details of the amendment
entrusted to him by the other mem
bers of the association.
The ayerments of plaintiff with re-
ference to change of business are de-
MED, as in the amended certificate the
same language was employed as in the
original; and in. fact there has not
been any change in the character of
the business.
1t is true the name of the association
was not changed and for the conven-
fence of the business the principal Of
fees were removed from Bessemer to
Pittsburg. The business was enlarg-
ed subsequent to the change of name
but this in nowise changed the legal
status of the association. The capt.
tai of the association was increased
from five to twenty-five million dol
lars and it is acknowledged that no
provision was made for the payment
into the treasury of the association OF
the original capital which had been
subscribed in 1881. The absence OF
such provision for a second payment
of capital previously paid in does not
affect the legal status of the associa-
ton, but may be taken as an evidence
of the intent of the parties not to Gre
ate new association.
The increase in capital was not paid
in coin OF bank notes, but it is true
the association did receive said
amount in cash in the manner in which