New-York tribune., 1909-06-29
Z. S. EXPRESS co. WINS
RECEIVER NOT ALLOTTED.
Court Also Denies duplication Of
.StockhoIder to Examine Books.

Justice Guy in the Supreme Court. ha4eed down
a decision yesterday denying both applications OF
John L Dudley respectively for the appointment Of
q receiver for the United States Express Company
and for permission 10 examine Ire oorrGnys
books
Dadley. who holds one hundred shares Of stock
in the United States Express Company, made many
serious charges in his actions against the manage
rnent erd directors. saving that the affairs Of the
company were conducted in the interests of few
men. TO the prejudice Of many shareholders In
the reoeisership proceeding he charged that the
federal and state laws nad been violated and that
the company had been fraudulently misnanased
and its assets wasted
Justice Guy says in his decision that he has
been unable to find in the moving IaTtrs or
affidavits any credible evidence Of fraudulent
misnana cement or any waste Of the assets Of
the company. The Court says that II federal
statute has beer violated. plaintiffs remedy is
10 lie found in the federal courts. and while
Violations of the laws of this state might in
certain cases furnish grounds for criminal pro-
ceedings, do not see how they constitute suf-
hcient grounds for the appointment Of tenn
porary receiver Justice Guy. referring TO the
alleged misrnanagement Of the company, says
that the latter started with nominal capital OF
100000 with small actual assets. and under
the present management has accumulated d
surplus Of s100oo.0oO
The justice says about the election to the
directorate of the United States Express Company
Of the presidents. respectively, of the Adams EA
press company ana The American E-AhlC Us 49,
pany-
There can he no question but that the elecuoh
Of said Directors Weir and Fargo who were a+ laateI
ested in rival concerns was fagTant ana qe1i5 ec
violation OF the articles Of association anu SuCL
violation might have furnished sufficient pass pass
iTectoTs void Bat It it appears from the moving
papers that though said election Of directors oG-
including the plaintiff. from the time he became
stockholder. acquiesced therein for a period OF
about eight years. and in no way expresseo llgia %
disapproval OF such action On me Pa+ PaI or+o19
directors until the beginning q te 81 he bsi
La e ne eTj,1s, iTrairrnent or injury
fv reason the election Of said directors, the
gross business of the express company has rapidly
and substantially increased. All the let result
IN accumulated earnings or profits has been very
large In view Of such acquiesoence on the Part OF
the plaintiff and other stockhoiders VINO paIIiel-
pated in the benefits resulting from the manage
ent o the company curing 80 SAG & gtIne 90. a an ir- e
ceive serious consideration
The opinion Of the Court says that the inability
% bring about meetings Of stockholders or TO OBJ
tain detailed information Of the conpanys affairs
and the control Of the company by sef-perpetuat
ing body 10 he deplored-
In denying the application for the plaintiff or his
accountants to examine the books and records Of !
the company. Justice Guy says that the plaintiff
has mistaken his remedy. and for that the
application Is denied
Louis H. Newlirk, Of No Is Wall street. counsel
for John L. Dudley said that he was surprised at
the refusal Of Justice Guy TO permit inspection
of the books and assets of the express company. /
and that appeal from his decision certainly
would be taken. As for the reCeivership action /
Air. Newkirk said that while he had hoped il !
would be granted he not surprised al the (
Justices ruling. He added that his client would /
continue his efforts 10 compel the management Of /
the United States Express Company to call meet !
iug- the stockholders. and failing that would /
seek dissolution Of the company and q distrihu- |
tion Of its assets The next legal step. Mr. New
kirk said would he TO ask the court to order an |
examination Of the officers Of the company. which 1
he did not think would be refused
aIr NewkiTk expects To go TO St Paul in /
the near future attend the hearing there before
the Interstate Commerce Commission of the com
Tlaint fled by State Senator Bengt Sundberg /
against the United States. Adams and American |
Express companies for alleged violation OF the /
interstate commerce II is charged in the com
plaint that the three companies mentioned work
together without competition and monopolze the
express business. and that the dominating power
held by them enables them establish the rules
and ix The rates which they enforce for the trans
portation Of property by express. Mr.. NewBirk has
promised James Manahan. of Minneapolis, attorney
for Senator Sundberg. that he VIII furnish him
with what evidence he his possession against
the United States Express Company at the |
hearing. and in return Mr.. Manahan Will assist
Dir. Newkirk in any action ne may bring against /
the cornp2n- here