Year: 1870

TIE RAM5EY-FIsR NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. M


TIE SUPREME COURT


The case OF the Erie Railway Company aoainst
Joseph H. Ramsey ct al, was heard yesterday in tho
Supreme Court at General Term before Jusiices rna
ham and CardozO. The defendants appeal from Al, oa
OF the Special Term made by Judge Barnard On the ao
Of November On the 2ad Of November 1869 the defend
ant commenced an action against Jay Could James PisI
the Erie Railway Company and Others an accountin
by Gould and Fisk and Others a. directors Of the sad
Company and praying for their suspension and rsmov
The venue in tho action Was laid In Delaware County
and the Court a Special Term at Delhi granted ORDER
sIspending Gould, Fisk and others a. direct0rs and
enoinng them from acting These orders served
and the day after this action Of the Company against
Ramsey and others commenced. The eomplalnt
alleges among other things fraudulent appearance OF
an attorney In the Ramsey suit, Tor The Erie Railway
Company Upon this complaint and the afdays Of Whit
taker and White, the injunction was granted restraining
asainst Flax and Gould and from commenting or per.
mitting 10 be commenced any other action OF similar
nature against this Company, &C. ending WIN AN order
TO show cause before Judge Barnard on the Oth nst
why the injunction should not be continued until Judg
Upon the return Of the order show cause the facts
in relation TO the alleged fraudulent appearance by at
orney for the Erie Railway Company, were explained
The Judge tOok the papers and although the order
nuing the injunction ~ dated as the th OF November
18th OF April 1870 upon which latter date the order
to have been perfected The appellant claims that
the Injunction order In this action and is absolutely
void and should, therefore, never have been graheh


that restrains the prosecution Of an action IN the same
Court from which the injunction issues, and that since
the adoption Of the code there has been unhrOlen
series OF authorities all holding that the Court would
not grant injunction in action o restrain proceed
ings N another The only possible ground which. from
the allegations In the complaint could be assigned "A
the basis for this Injunction, 10 be found In the aega


ton OF fraudulent appearance by the attorney Or tho


If the Court is satisfied that no such alleged fraudulent
appearance true In fact or that II true at the time Of
the granting OF the facts appeared before hs
Special Term upon the argument OF the order show
cause showing that all danger land therefore all
for the nunction) removed by u any alleged
fraudulent appearance then this Court should reverse
the ,order OF Special Term. ana dissolve this in
{q1tS''" truth Of the Complaint ia to have trial
That trial that searching investigation into the truth
falsity OF the complaint that rigorous Examination
which awaits these men when the time Of trial shan


finally arrive, counsel for MI Ramsey assert they desire
TO avert and thus far have successfully avoided. II e
plaintiff in that upon fair and impartial trial.
cannot substa ntate the truth Of the complaint then he
must fail and share the fate Of any other unsuccessful
sutOr But he desire opportunity TO test that ques
ton He ia willing to take the responsibthty OF a
failure. He simply asks this Court to permit hm TO be
heard-to allow HIM the opportunity oI pIovng upon,
trial. the truth OF his charges against these nt n 40
only asks the right accorded 10 any citizen OF this STATE
the right a speedy hearing of his case, ana 1ndl
cal determination of the questions at isShe Det"eh MN


Mr. Field for the respondents argued that the action
Of the Court was legitimate and that the Courts had no
served decision Peckham and Freeman for appellant;
Field and SheaFman for respondent


ANOTHER CASE.


As soon as the disposed OF for the day


the action entitled The Erie Railway Go. against Joseph
plication at Special Term of the Supreme Court o
have modified injunction granted by Judge barnard



motion upon facts applicable to the issue The mo-
ton seeks relief In the alternatives dissolution OF
modification of the injunction After hearing COUNSEL
for both sides, the Court took the papers.


STILL ANOTHER CAsE-ERIB PROBABLY CONCERNED..


The Justices who listened to the arguments IN me
above causes and took the papers had tune eIt 10
attend to the cause OF Orlando W. JOslyn ana JOhn Y.
Bostwick aGt James Fisk, jr ct al Tins was an ap-
peal from an order granted by Judge Barnard These
actions commenced in the Court or Common Pleas
TO money alleged TO he dne under contracts for
the purchase and sale OF gold, and the defendants on
afdavis moved to have the causes transferred To tho
Supreme Court before Judge Barnard The motion vas
granted and the plaintiffs now appeal TO the General
Term IL is contended the part OF the plaintiffs that
the order made puTpOrting to remove this and other
actions involved in this appeal was not based upon te
conditions prescribed by law as necessary 70
entite the Court 10 take jur1sd OF tho
actions, and that the order made at Special
Term was therefore, not only unauthorized but Is an ab
solute nuy. This is question OF jurisdiction requir
ing certain facts DE presented and IN the absence OK
legitimate facts this Court had power to make re-
mOva and possible could be assigned Tor an
order chan ging the place OF trial trial can be had
much in the Court OF Common Pleas. Inc plain
tis claim that the Supreme Court had no Jurisdiction 10
tho cause Tor the that the old statutes
authorized transfer OF a from Common Pleas 70
superior court only where change OF place or trial was
necessary.


The defendants claim that the Supreme Court may re-
move cause from another court and may change tho
place Of trial. and argued that the Court had previously
held thai IL had authority under the code. Decision ro
gpry