Case Name: Bradford, E. & C. R. Co. et al. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-05-18
Citations: 1 N.Y.S. 363
Docket Number: 
Parties: Bradford, E. & C. R. Co. et al. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 1
Pages: 363–369

Head Matter:
Bradford, E. & C. R. Co. et al. v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
May 18, 1888.)
Contract—Consideration—Public Policy.
A contract between two railroad companies by which defendant agreed to make-good any deficiencies in plaintiffs’ net earnings so as to meet the interest on its bonded indebtedness, in consideration of which plaintiff should grant a first lien-next to that of the bondholders, on all its property and franchises, and also deposit with defendant a majority of its capital stock on condition that the right to vote-upon said stock should remain with representatives of plaintiff as long as the latter’s road was operated satisfactorily to defendant, is not perse void as against public policy. Daniels, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Hew York county; Patterson, Justice.
Action by the Bradford, Eldred & Cuba Railroad Company, and Thomas CPlatt as receiver, against the Hew York, Lake Erie & "Western Railroad Company, for sums alleged to be due plaintiffs on a contract. Judgment was rendered for plaintiffs for $103,201.63, and defendant appeals. The case was tried and appealed once before, and is reported in 42 Hun, 496.
J. Á. Buchanan, and Charles Steele, (Charles Steele, of counsel,) for appellant. MacFarland, Boardman & Platt, (W. W. MacFarland, of counsel,) for respondents.

Opinion:
Bartlett, J.
I think this judgment should be affirmed unless we are prepared to reverse the previous decision of the general term in this case. 42 Hun, 496. The legality of the contract in question was distinctly upheld by the court on an appeal from an order dismissing the complaint, and I am unable to find anything in the facts which have now been proved upon the trial which ought to change the conclusion reached in that respect, if it was correct. As it is not plain to my mind that the previous decision was erroneous, I am in favor of adhering to it, and therefore vote to affirm the judgment.
Van Brunt, P. J., concurs in the result.