The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-01-09

and Middendorf entered into an agree
ment for the sale of certain securities.
1902 shares Of the capital stock Of the
Seeboard and Roanoke being among
them, and that on February ], 1883, the
syndicate sale was consummated, and
an agreement was also entered into by
which managing committee was appoint
ed to vote the disposition of the stock.
Ge denied that the stock was purchased
by the committee. and declared that the
bill was framed throughout, charging Mr..
Williams and others with forming 4 trust
or combination to give them control Of
the Seaboard and power 10 dispose of
the voting of stock as they desired. The
answer. he claimed, nowhere admits that
the 1902 shares constituted the controll-
ing interest Of the Seaboard.
Nr. Carter interrupted, stating that the
1902 shares did give control OF the 1900
shares Of the Seaboard. The sale, Mr..
Carter stated, was nowhere in the de-
fendant's answer denied; that the sale
was made under 4 syndicate agreement.
aIr. Bond said that it was, and detailed
the circumstances of the sale OF stocks
of the system OF roads. That the ac-
tions We're taken at the meetings of the
stockholders Of the roads at various meet
ings and these led to the results That
the action of the Board Of Directors and
of the president were ratified by The
stockholders.
WANT SALE DECLARED VOID.
Mr. AIarbury asserted that his client
was entitled to an injunction restraining
any consolidation, and that the sale OF
the bonds should he declared old. At
$50 o'clock recess was taken, and MI.
Marbury continued his argument when
the court again convened.
At 4 o'clock argument was resumed
sby Mr.. Marbury. lie opened by stating
that mo one would have the hardihood
to deny that the Seaboard syndicate
Civilians, Middcndorf and assoclateSl
held the controlling interest in the Sea-
board and Roanoke, and had the power
to cast the majority vote"
Mr. AIarbury denied that the same
party or parties could act in both the
capacities of seller and purchaser. and
charged that this was done by the Sea-
board syndicate in the purchase of the
treasury stock of the Seaboard and Roam
oke.
The following is a brief summary of
the lengthy statement made by the coun-
sci for Mr. Ryan during the argument.
The attorneys all covered practically the
same ground:
Mr.. Ryan wanted it distinctly under
stood by the court that he was not op-
tension Of the Seaboard Air Line sys-
tem The Richmond connection with
the South he believed to be judcous and
advantageous TO the Southern people.
His objection to Mr.. Williams plan was
directed in the first place TO a union OF
the Seaboard system with the Georgia
and Alabama and the Florida Central
and Pennsular, and in the second place.
to the eXtravagant and burdensome mali
ner in which that proposed union was
devised. In the course of their remarks
Mr.. Ryan's lawyers alleged breaches of
trust and other improper proceedings
against Mr.. Williams purcha sing syndi-
cate on the one hand. and against his
railroad voting committees ON the other
hand. His lawyers said that AR. Will
liams and AIr. AIiddendorf were occupy
ing the impossible position of rcnder. act
ing in behalf of the Seaboard Stock
holders. and by law for the equal benefit
Of all such stockholders, and at the same
time and in the same transaction. as
vendee, in the purchase of the securi-
tics which as vender they were selling.
They said that a transaction of this ma
ture was not only voidabie. but reces-
sarily void: that men were not to he
permitted to put themselves in position
where their interests contiicted; that men