New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-01-28
SUIT AGAINST PITTsBURG & WESTERN
ALLEGATIONS AGAINST BALTIMORE AND OHIO RY
MEssRs. HIGGINS RHODES AND BAKER
WHO ASK TO BE Co-DEFENDANTs.
BURG & WESTERN

Pittsburs. Jan. 27-In the United States Circuit
Court to-day. In the case of the Mercantile Trust
Company against the Pittsburg and Western Rail-
Company, A. Foster Higgins. John Harsen
Rhodes and Charles w. Baker filed petition ask
Ing to be made defendants.
The petition alleges that the Pfttsburg company
created for the purpose of carrying into effect
a scheme to reorganize the defendant company.
1t is alleged that an increase of 81 10000 in the
capital stock of the company sub
scribed paid for in cash labor. Therefore the
capital stock of the company is 100000 and
there has been no increase in accordance with the
law.
It is charged that the Baltimore and Ohio Rail-
road Company since January. 1884, has been a
holder OF a small majority of the capital stock,
and has therefore been able to control the policy
of the defendant company The petitioners charge
that, Notwithstanding the improved condition and
earning power OF the defendant company. the
Board of Directors has taken steps to readjust
or fund the debts of the defendant company,
bring about any reorganization by which the
rights of its stockholders would be protected.
Also. that the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany proposes and intends forcing swift sale Of
the property Of the defendant company to
destroy the value of the stock held by the petit
TONERS and to vest q title to the property Of
the defendant company IN the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company.
1t is alleged that the counsel for the Pittsburg
and Western Railway Company is also counsel
for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company,
which now claims to be the owner of nearly all
the bonds of the defendant company; that the
decree Of sale was not based on any report or
evidence but admissions contained in the an
swer of the defendant company. and that the fore
closure suit has been absolutely undefended; that
there diverse valid defences against material
portion Of the claims of the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company The petitioners allege that
the of s39 A6, being interest on unpaid cou
pons. is Illegally required to be paid by the de-
PENDANT company The petitioners charge that
after the alleged increase of the capital stock to
s13.5oOo00 there never was thereafter any meeting
of the holders of such increased capital to vote
on the increase OF the bonded debt of the de-
PENDANT company, and that not dollar of money
realized by the treasury of the defendant
company by the fictitious increase of its capital
stock.
1t is further charged that the second mortgage
and void, and that the $4,000 OF bonds in the
hands Of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Com
pany are absolutely void
The Court is asked to decree that the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company is liable for the
common stock it holds in the defendant company
to the amount of S1O27,500 and interest thereon
since 1892 and that such sum constitutes just set
off against the Baltimore and Ohio, to be credited
upon the bonds held by the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company.
The Court fixed next Saturday for a hearing in
the