The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-02-14
ASK LIMITED NEW
HAVEN RECEIVER
Suit Is TO Have Court Agent
70 Prosecute Claim Against
Alleged Conspirators.
,RGT MENT FEBRUARY 81
Plaintiffs Asserted to Have
j1,959 Sharcs-Prcsent
Directors Served.
ARGUMENT FEBRUARY 81

Anew turn TO the efforts made during
ma mast two and one-half years TO force
me board OF directors of the New Haven
ro'Iroad 90 bring restitution suits
against former directors. including the
: Psrpont Morgan estate, William
Rockefeller, Lewis Cass Ledyard.
Charles NJ. Pratt and the Hamilton
Mckay Twombly estate, came yesterday
when an application was made in the
United states District Court before
Judge John c. Knox for the appoint
men. Of limited receivership of the
New Haven Railroad Company.
THE purpose OF the suit is to get an
aren't Of the ccuse. wHn. acting for the
New Haven board and unuer judicial in
s,ructioNs. would take UP the claims and
asses IN action against certain alleged
.rrsp.rators. would investigate and re-
oort 10 the court as to tAe liability of
said alleged conspirators for loss and
taste Of the company's moneys and as
sets b. reason of unlawful and ultra
wires acts as well as to the desirability
~ bringing further action.
The application to show cause why a
temporary receiver should not be APP
pointed was fled by Saul S. Myers Of so
Wall street and Edgar r. Bracket Of
Saratoga Springs. as solicitors for the
r'a,ntifts. Harold Norris ct al. who. It
was asserted. own $3.50 shares Of New
Haven stock. OF which there Is outstand-
ng l.511.1l? shares. Argument on the
application will be heard. provided there
Is no postponement, a week from to-day.
In the meantime the bill of complaint
& being served on the present directors
" the New Haven as we'll as on the
Director-General of Railways, who I'M
der the Federal control act Is operating
the railroad. although the application
specifically states that the receivership
Shall not interfere with the admin!stra-
ton Of the current affairs Of the cor
porat!on or the operation OF its transpor-
tat!on system An attempt Is TO be
made, provided a temporary receiver is
appointed. to have the receivership made
ornament
Echo of Suit Of 1914.
Tie struggle TO bring TO trial restitu-
Ion suits to recover from former direc-
ors OF the New Haven sums ranging from
$4,000, 900 to $3.50, 900. 900 began back
N 1914 when the Bartlett VS.. Rookie
fsller action was brought in the Supreme
Judicial Court of Massachusetts,, with
"ht7ple. Sears & Ogden as counsel. A
renewed effort was made in 1915, with
Asa T. French, Arthur Berenson, Francis
p. Garland and Bernard Berenson as
counsel for certain stockholders. But
ne most ambitious struggle was started
about two years ago b. former United
states Attorney Henry a. Wise on be-
haf Of Edwin Adams and certain other
stockholders. known rs the Adams Rock
efsler action, TO recover $3.50. 900. 900 al
eed 10 have been lost to tho road by
reason of the attempt Of those directors
% amalgamate various railroad. trolley
and steamship lines in violation OF the
provision OF the Sherman law.
The alleged wrongs TO the minority
stockholders were not ignored by the
New Haven directorate under the regim.
81 Howard Elliott. They appointed
Noorfeld Storey as special counsel IT
I've matter OF restitution suits. On hi:
ADVICE. Mr.. Elliott at the 1915 meeting
& the stockholders made the following
-'stement: I felt and the board OF direc
ors felt the same way. that It was 9
waste Of time and energy to fritter ava,
80 company's time and its money II
ringing lawsuits that would be futile
For that reason the board decided moi
80 bring certain lawsuits that we're sug
gssted The question OF restitution is q
Very important one and has been River
very careful consideration by the direc'
.nrs os whole" Since that date there
has leen no change Of attitude on the
part Of the directorate.
Details of Complaint.
The Adams suit has been an expen
sva one to maintain. the bill OF com
liant alleging that the expense on tht
l-2S minority stockholders, own'nt
about one-thirtieth of the outstanding
y'oo,., mas been found 20 be 20 burden
some as TO be practically impossible
Other reasons for the request for lin
tod receivership may be summarized al
n 1ws:
The Adams VS.. Rockefeller suit |.
~ brought against all the former direc
tors hut only against the J. P!erpon
Morgan estate. William Rockefeller
LEWIS Cass Ledyard. Charles NJ. Pratt
art the Hamilton Mckay Twombly es
ate
Tho Adams vs. Rockefeller sui
rs not seek to cancel the Westchestel
-.9ran'ec Of nearly 500. 900 900. on which
ne road is paving 100000 year inter
''', and similar guarantees.
. such an important suit should no
be allowed to remain in the hands Of {
N group of stockholders who ma,
H-i e 20 their advantage to make a sep
rate settlement and 1t would then be too
ats for other stockholders to start Q
'-tsA suit.
TIE receiver. being wholly dieinter
es'ed, would, as an officer OF the court
ba z Ven freer access to the books OF tn,
'oad than could be accorded 20 n small
kr'p0 ~ stockholders.
: such a suit hoicg OF such enormNu!
Sc ana scope. would be prosecuted witt
'.'I7H'ty ~ purpose, unity OF actor
~ .rIartiality only by n receiver ap
PORTED and directed by the court.