The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-03-13
The Carnegie Steel Company and
Thirty individual Defendants
Unite In Answer to
ALLEGATIONS OF FRIcK CASE.
The Battle Royal Of The Great Steel
Kings Now On In
Earnest.

IN determine the value OF nus uoluih8p
IN said company, was filed in common
pleas court No. /.
The answers iiled are for the Carne-
Gle Steel Company limited. and the
tbirty Individual defendants, below
named: 49,.
The Carnegie Steel Company limited;
andrew Carnegie, G. NJ. Schwab, fhos'
Morrison, James Gayley, w. w, Black
burn. ]. Ogden Hoffman, James Scott
" 3. Corey, L. T. Brown, a. ]. Lind
say, h. Z. Tener, Jr., W. B. Dickson,
John Mcleod, A. r. Hunt, p. 2. BERG
L. c, Phlpps, w. n, Singer, d. n. Glenn
son, A. N. -doreland, John c, Fleming'
George e. Mccague, q. P. Bope, JOS
3, schwab, D. &. Kerr, p. F. Wood, Q.
n. Packer, A. G. Case, c. W. Baker, a.
q. plnkey and Charles McCreery.
The other Individual defendants are
M follows: Henry Phipps, Jr., George
lauder tnow in Europe). II. NJ. curry
(sIcxI A. R. Peacock (now in calitor-
uia), F. T. F. Lovejoy (who ha1 ALREADY
answered., George H. Wightman (noW
IN Florlda), Charles Taylor NOV in
California;, A. R. Whitney (now In Cali
iSornIaO. AIillard HunsIker (now In
I,ondon) and George Megrew.
The document complete makes neariy
10000 words, meeting every averment
Of the plaintiff In fullest detail.
Abstract Of the Bill.
An abstract of the bill follows:
n &. 5pnind that Andrew Carnegie
and others named in the plaintiffs bill,
during April, May and June, 1892, exe-
cuted articles of association tor tne
carnegie Steel Company, limited put
they did subscribe to an amendment ot
the original certificate under which
carnegie Bros, limited, had been or
ranized as a limited partnership asso-
ciatlon. said amendment was mot Tor
the purpose OF creating g new partner-
ship or new partnership associauon'
but for modifying the terms OF the
original certificate.
Al a meeting Of the shareholders on
March Is. 1892, at which the plaintihi
II. c. FriciS, was present a resolution
was passed nroyiding for such an
amenment, ana a committee. consisting
OF II. c. T'rick, II. NJ. Curry and E. y
F I,ove,oy, was appointed to carry out
the details OF n general plan which mao
been outlined. Mr.. FricE was the prin-
clpal actor on that committee. Az a
shareholders meeting on July l. lSs2r
the committee, through Mr.. Frlck, sub
mIttpd the amended certificate with the
yt,ternent thnt Il had been duly signed
and executed by every member and had
been recorded. Upon Mr.. FriclS's mo-
tion said amendment was approved
and adopted. II there was any defec'
in said articles, as plaintiff now AYERS
he is primarily responsible for such In
not properly and In good faith direct
Ing the details Of the amendment en-
trusted to him by the other memberS
o. the association.
The increase in capital was not paid
n coin or bank notes, but It is true the
association did receive said amount In
rash In the manner In which CONNER
rlal transactions OF such extent are us
,laIly made-by the receipt Of checks
drawn on solvent ard Responsible
hanks. which were regularly deposited
10 the credit of the association, and
unon prcsentatlon at the bank were
pald. In addition to the sum Of S2O.OOO'-
600 thus paid there has been paid into
the association in cash and invested In
It's property and business more than
double the amount.
In fuftherance OF the Intention to In
crease lta business and acquire addl-
ilonal plant room the association pur-
chased the property Of Carnegie, Phlppa
& Co. limited, separate partnership
association, for $100OO.OOO, and paid for
same about June 30. 1892, in the usual
manner.
The members Of Carnegie. PhIpps &
Co. limited. all being subscribers to
the increased capital OF the association,
endorsed and delivered their dividend
checks 10 the association, which were
deposited and collected.
The 200 Pen Cent. Dividend.
On the same day Curnegie Bros. &
Co, limited, paid to It's members a div
idend of 200 per cent, or $4,000 900, rep
resentIng the earnings previously In
vested In the company's property and
as the members receiving such diVi-
dends were all subscribers 20 Its In
creased capital, endorsed and delivered
the dividend checks 10 the association
which were deposited and collected In
the usual manner.
Such payment was good and sum
cient. as the checks were drawn on
solvent bank against an actual balanct
TO their credit. and the act was entirely
in accordance with the true spirit and
intent nj the articles Of association and
the laws n the state.
The method OF payment. n open IA
criticism (Which Is not admitted, but
denled) was devised. approved and car'
Ned out by the plaintiff: consequently
the plaintiff Is estopped from in any
wise questioning the propriety and va
Hdity of hiB own act.
With respect TO the claim OF piaintih
Ia the fourth paragraph OF his bill. tho
defendants nTe ignorant. and call fol
proof However. regardless Of plain.
TINS legal advice, recent or remote, OF
htB belief M 70 the legal status OF tho
association. HIS own action in connec'
ton with II and its business have been
,lch NJ To estop Inn from questlonlRg
ihe validity Of its organization as n
Partnership association.
History Of Frick's Membership
Tie answer then sets forth the his.
,''T Of Mr. Fr1ck'H membershlp In the
aSsociatlon. To begin with. his inter.
9t9 Wera acquired IN tho Raine manner