Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-05-24
President of the Lackawana Sc
verely Scored by Judge Wal
lace of Circuit Court
DECISION uPHoLDs CONTRACT
Court Says Action of Trucsda'e in Re-
pudiatns Contract Was Repreh"nsi-
bIe-Such Action On Part If Rail-
road Officials Cause of W,desp,e cad
Discomfort.

| in the United States circuit court or
which Judges Lacombe and Townsend
| concur, criticising in way a htlSant
rarely is criticised from the bench, W..
H. Trues,ale, president OF the Della
ware, Llckawanna and Western rail-
road company, for breaking a contract
with the executor of the estate of John
III. Paul. a man who is credited with
organizing the milk business on all
eastern railroads.
Judge Wallace in his opinion de-
clares Truesdale's action in breaking
this contract was inspired by "sordid
motives" and that he "dishonorably
and arbitrarily repudiated contract,
legally drawn.
1t is conduct like Truesdales." said
the court, '-by those who manage the
affairs of great corporations that has
aroused the spirit of resentment in
the public mind which is so intense
today, and which not unlikely will re-
suit in litigation and in municipal in
reference, which will bring serious loss
upon Stockholders
Court Affirms Judgment.
The Lackawanna railroad was de-
PENDANT in the court below and by writ
of error sought to reverse the judg-
ment there obtained by Robert e.
Wescott and others The judgment
against the railroad In the lower court
was $780, 1853, and this now is confirm
ed.
Mr. Truesdale, shortly after he en-
tered upon the duties of his office in
succeeding Samuel Sloan, who had
made a contract with Westcott, noti-
fed Westcott he was dissatisfied with
the terms Of the contract.
According to the testimony offered In
the case Truesdale went SO far as to
declare that contracts made before
my coming do not stand"
In his opinion Judge Wallace says:
"In the present case the jury would
have been justified in finding that the
railroad company, at the instigation
of its president. Truesdale. had arbi-
trarily and dishonorably repudiated
contract which both parties had per-
formed for six years, which they had
extended for nine years more, which
they had then performed for seven
more years, which the defendant had
regarded as fair and reasonable, when
TrueSdale, having determined to end 1T,
because it was too profitable to Vest
cott and having cast about for an ex-
cuse, assigned one which was unpro-
vided
Had No Defense.
"If it had been proved that Westcott
had violated the contract by any act
which tended to diminish the milk traf-
f1c Of the defendant 1t would be imma-
terial that Truesdale as defendant as
signed a wrong reason for terminating
it; there could have been meritorious
defense of the action.
"The reputation of the contract was
without any justification, for even If
contracts with the New York Central
| railroad company theoretically are COM
petitive, they have been consented to by
officers of the railway. The reputation,
as has been said, was announced when
the contract had nearly expired, and
| when the defendant shortly would have
secured exclusively
ut was repudiated for sordid motives
| the consequences.
The appropriation of Wescotts per-
centage of the money, which defend
ant actually had collected for him,
morally was no better than larceny
Altho Truesdale primarily was respon-
sible for this conduct, and directors of
defendant and may not have been per-
sonally cognizant of it. they cannot es-
cape their share Of the moral RESPONSE
bility which comes from endeavoring
to establish defense interposed earlier
In the action