The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-12-17
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
RAILROAD FAVORED IN or
 FEED CASE.

Plaintiffs Demurrer OverruIed-- VIII
 Now Have to Sell His Derby Railroad
 Stock--D Decision in IngersoIl Case Half the Fund Goes to Miss Justine
 H. IngersolI and the Other Half to
 Maud F. Hayes--Other Decisions.
 Several decisions were handed down by the supreme court of Connecticut late yesterday afternoon. None of them was of general public interest ex- cept the decision in the case of the New York, New Haven and Hartford Rail- road company vs. Charles K. of1eId. of Chicago. This action was on a demur- Ter to the petition of the company that Off1eld be compelled to sell to the rail- road two shares of stock which he owns in the old Derby railroad. By the de- cision rendered yesterday rne demurrer is overruled This is a victory for the railroad company which will now probably gain possession of the stock through condemnation proceedings. A great deal of attention has been attracted to the case all over this sec tion of the country. The petition was brought originally by thu railroad com pany about year ago under the stat ute which provides that a railroad cor poration owning more than three- fourths of the stock of another con1pa- | ny may condemn the outstanding stock. MT. Off1eld refused to sell his stock so the action was brought.
 | After this action had been brought Judge Gager heard the case in the su- perior court and his decision was re- served. The attorneys for MT. Offield Imade an attempt to bring the case be- fore the United States circuit court, but | 1t was carried to the supreme court on reservation, demurrer being entered | to the complaint of the defendants. I. was on this demurrer that the decision was handed down yesterday. Apprais- CTS will now probably be appointed by the superior court and after they place a valuation on the two shares of stock now owned by MT. 0ffield 1t will prob ably come into the possession of the lroad through condemnation proceed- ings.
 The other decisions were as follows:
 George F. Ingersoll vs. Justine H In- gersoll ct al; superior court advised 2 that half the fund in controversy goes to Justine H. Ingersoll and half to Maud E. Hayes, administratrix; no costs to either party in this court; opin- ion by Judge Baldwin.
 l James Jenner vs. Walter Brooks; no error; opinion by Judge Torrance. Ida Granville vs. Alfred $. Arnott; no
 error; opinion by Judge Prentice. William K. Townsend ct al vs Royal
 1T. Wilson ct al; superior cotlrt advis-
 ed to render judgment in accordance. l with the views expressed i'll the opinion; opinion by Judge Prentice.
 Bridget McAllin vs. Martin McAllin;
 no error; opinion by Judge Prentice. T. w. Fitzmaurice vs. Roswell H. l Buck; error and new trial granted;. I opinion by Judge Prentice.
 Maxwell Slade vs. Otto F. zeitfuss;
 no error; opinion by Judge Hammer
 sley.
 I Samuel A. Alderman vs the New De-
 parture Bell company; error and judg-
 ment reversed; opinion by Judge Ham,
 mersley.
 Edward F. Cole, guardian vs Will
 liam w. Jermal; no error; opinion by
 Judge Hamnersley
 Robert M. filling ct ux. vs. George
 Weissman; no error; opinion by Judge Hammersley.
 I The Norman Printers Supply coinpa- ny vs Avie B. Ford; error and new trial ordered; opinion by Judge Bald I win.
 Mary J. Aldrich vs. David Higgins; I no error; opinion by Judge Hall I NJ 4...-..4 . rr,.,a,.1 nR IF ,t.or. a1Nacd