New Britain herald., 1917-09-01
SWEEPING DENIAL
 BY EX-D|RECT0RS
Defendants in 'NeW Haven" Suit
 File Answer

New York, Sept. 1.-Sweeping de- nial of all of the allegations contained in the action for $16O, O,O00,O 900 recent ly started against the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company executors of the will of J. Pierpont Morgan, William Rockefeller, Chas. M. Pratt and other one-time directors of the railroad corporation, were con- ta1ned in the answers of the defend ants filed yesterday in the United States Court.
 The action is based upon the con- tention of several stockholders of the railroad that in the purchase of other transportation lines the funds of the New Haven road were wasted and the $160, 100000 is demanded as restitu- tion. The plaintiffs in the action are Edwin Adams, Julius c. Morse Geo. o. Fisk. James F. Ray, and Mary M. Clark, as shareholders.
 The answers of the defendants similar in each instance comprise thirty pages and present nine separ- ate defences. Admission readily is made that the moneys funds and credits of the New Haven road were used in the purchase of stocks, bonds and securities of certain of the cor porations named in the complaint. Denial is made, however, that the New Haven company, or any of its l subsidiaries, at any time, directly or indirectly, purchased, acquired, leas- ed or controlled' the Boston and AL bany Railroad Company, the Metro politan Steamship Company or the Esatern Steamship Company.
 MT. Rockefeller's answer as do the others, admits that the plaintiffs in the present action. as we'll as other shareholders, requested the officers and directors to enforce certain al- legged rights of action of the company against other defendants. Neverthe- less the answers state that mot withstanding said requests the Said officers and directors of the said com- pany have refused, and still refuse, to bring action to enforce said alleged rights of action against other defend ants''
 MT. Rockefeller's answer then goes into details regarding discussion by the then directors of the railroad com- pany of the requests made of them and now complained of in the bill os complaist in the present action. Upon the advice of counsel and after care full consideration, the answers state, the directors voted unanimously against granting the request, this action beingttaken before the annual meeting of the company. What took place at the annual meeting then is explained in the answers as follows:
 '"The decision Of the board of di- rectors not to bring action against the one-time directors was discussed at length and a resolution was pre- scented by Asa P. French. claiming to represent the plaintiffs in this action or some of them, requiring the direc- j tors to institute and prosecute such suits for restitution, and said resolu- ton and resolution to approve the action of the directors were voted upon by the stockholders. Upon such vote stockholders owning 925,124 shares voted in favor of the resolu- l tion approving the action of the di- | rectors and stockholders owning 14,- 553 shares voted against said reso- lution. Stockholders owning 14, ,553 shares voted in favor of the resolu ton requiring the institution of suits for restitution and stockholders own 1 ing 925,124 shares voted in opposi- l ton thereto"
 The answer thereafter shows that l the directors were reelected at the i same meeting by vote of stockholders ! owning 948,00 shares, Including the 1 votes of stockholders who had prev iously voted against the approval of | their action.' The answers assert tho directors refused to take the le- gal action requested of them because no sufficient foundation existed for starting such suits that the prescott