Idaho Springs siftings., 1904-04-09
A Legal Opinion.

Y in regard TO the Big Five Snffa con-
troyersy, will be read with considerable
interest. The writer IS now district
Judge on the bench in New YORK. has
practiced Law all his life. is 90 years Of
age, and wha, he SAYS will attract more
interest thar If it CAME from less
noted authority:
EDITOR IDAHO SPRINGS SiFrIsGs:
Dear Sir:-I have read with interest
and approval your comments on the
action OF DR. Suffa against the Big iive
and Messrs Daniels and Merrill. II IS a
very singular action. grouping eight cor
Z pora,ions and two persons as defendants
{ In fact, all the six thousand stockhoid-
Z ers in the several corporations are prae-
,ically defendants. for all their invest
ments aud interests are ,mperiied and
attacked. More important still. the mil
{ lions invested in corporate enterprises IN
/ Colorado are menaced by the ac,i n of
the district court IN appointing re-
ceiver. The corporations detenda ut
were pursuing their ~onted business :
under the harmonious management OF
/ boards OF directors having practically, so
+ far as asn informed. the support OF sub
siantially all the stockholders exerp,
one. No creditors were pressing their
claims, for the very good reason that
there we're no creditors. The corpora
tions we're eoncedesily solvent. with a
very large surplus Under such eireurn-
stances a stockholder. upon most con
( fused, rambling and involved complaint.
containing much OF iuuendo and sug-
yrs,ion and little of direct charge upon
which If wiifuliy false prosecution
for perjury could be had. has secured the
appointment OF receiver, II II can be
done with the Big Five. why not with
every corporation in Colorado, re
ownership IS preventive remedy grant
ell by a court OF equity to con-
serve the rights and interests of all.
+ Cases might be cited IN which receivers
over mining property have been appoint
ed in order that irretrievable loss might
not eusue from the stoppage Of the work.
In this case there is no danger of the
work stopping unless it occur through
the appointment of a receiver. In an
English case a receiver Of coal mine
was appointed en- condition that plaintiff
should pay the expense Of continuing
the work OF mining. and a, his loss IN
case OF his failure IN the action The
plaintiff in this case would scarcely ask
the appointment a receiver under such
conditions. and viewed merely from a
/ financial standpoint the Big Five could
almost Afioid under such conditions to
have receiver appointed, for We have
still confidence in the upper courts OF
/ Colorado and that the uitims;e result of
this action must be successful for the de-
feudsn,s-
A receivership has also been defined as
an equitable execution issued in advance
Of the Judgment In our case plaintiffs
osu papers show property several times
sufficient, to meet his claims of damages,
absurd aud extravAgsn, as they are De
PENDANTS claim that he has made gross
differentiation OF their property. II
the plaintiff seeks here to have his in
ves,meuts returned. he has only to ask /,
and i, would be paid him Immediately
In fact, one Of his grievances is that the
Central company. in pursuance OF lis
policy OF having only corporation stock
holders, sought tn return him his mouey
with interest; II the plaintiff seeks ,o
destroy the corporations defendant.
attempt that. for only the state which
creates corporations can take away ihelF
charters 1t is somewha, difficult 10 de-
,ermine what the receiver can do for the
relief of the plaintiff. even If his appoint
r1eut were sustained. II is very possible
the plaintiff here would like to reorsaa-
ize the corporations and obtain control.
He IS in hopeless minority. and here
;otore i; has been supposed thar corPor-
ate affairs were governed by boards q
directors elected by the s,ockholders
The role of casspaw is not one which
courts are accustomed to play. 1t used
to be said zone with God Is majority.
but i; seems in Colorado one with the
district court is the whole thing 50 far as
the corporations are concerned
No one objects to DR.. Sutfa having his
day in cour, and having the brosdest
opportunity to prove any charges OF mis-
management. fraud, coliusiou or couspir-
acy by competent evidence. where wit
nesses may be seen and cross-exaInined.
The management of the Big Five would
rejoice a, such an opportunity, for in it
they are confident both the integrity and
ability Of the management would be es-
iabiished. We do object most en-