to US certain facts of history with relation to usury laws in general. IIU we look back upon history," said he, "we shall find that there is scarcely any people, ancient or modern, that have not had usury laws. The Romans through the greatest part of their history had the deepest abhorrence of usury. It will be deemed a little singular that the same voice against usury should have been raised in the laws of China, in the Hindu institutes of Menu, in the Koran of Mahomet, and perhaps, we may say, in the 'laws of all nations that we know of, whether Greek or barbarian." "In England, usury was an object of hatred and legal animadversion, at least as early as the time of Alfred." The statute of 37 Hen. VIIL, c. 9, not only made usury illegal, declared that the usurer should forfeit for every offense the total value of the money or thing forborne, but that he should suffer iQlprisonment, and that one moiety of the forfeiture should go to the king, and the other to the prosecutor. And while the British people at this time have free trade in money, as in everything else, the American states have, almost without exception, adopted laws prohibiting an unreasonable rate of interest. Here, at least, the utterances Lord REDESDALllJ are applicable, when he said: "The statute of usury is interposing its warning voice between the creditor and the debtor, even in their most secret and dangerous negotiations, and teaches a lesson of moderation to theone, and offers its protecting arm to the other." In this case the plaintiff must be content, so far as the action of this court is concerned, with his principal actually paid to the defendant and 8 per interest thereon, with attorney's fees. The verdict by which he has been deprived of the' 20 per cent. so-called commissions, included in the face of the note, but never received by defendant, is sustained, and the motion for anew trial is overruled.
and others. I
(aircuit aourt, E. D. New York. August 10,1887.)
INJUNCTION-AFFIDAVITS-CONFLICT OF TESTIMONY
Complainant, a; holder of bonds which a certain tract of land In the delta of the Orinoco was mortgaged to secure, applied for a preliminary injunction restrainin,!t defendants from committing any injury to said land. Nothing appeared in the moving papers to show that defendants were in any way interfering with the land in question except by claiming title to it, and the affidavits disclosed a confiict of testimony which could be passed upon safely only on the trial of the action. Held, that the determination of the rights of the parties should be postponed until the trial, and the motion for a preliminary injunction be denied.
SAME-PREVENTION OF W,A.STE-FOREIGN LAND-POWER TO ENJOIN.
A defendant, properly served, may be enjoined from committing waste upon, or otherwise Impairing the value of, property in which the complainant is interested, eventhough the property is situated abroad, provided a case for the interposition of a court 9f equity is made out.
lReported by Edward G. Benedict, Esq., of the New York bar.
In Equity. W. M. Safford, for complainant. Silas M. Stilwell, for defendant.
LACO:tdBE, J. This is an application for a preliminary injunction to restrain defendants George Turnbull and the Pedernales Company, their agents, associates, servants,etc., from committing any injury upon a certain tract of land in the delta of the Orinoco, or doing any other act to the prejudice of the complainant, who is the holder of certain bonds which said tract of land is mortgaged to secure. The defendant Turnbull raises a preliminary objection, viz.: That the court has no jurisdiction of the action, the bill being for the foreclosure ofa mortgage on lands situated in a foreign country. The question of jurisdiction need be considered at this stage of the proceedings so far only as it is germane to the matter now before the court. The particular relief prayed for in the bill, and which the court is now asked to extend to the complainant, is concededly within the power of this court. A defendant, properly served, may be enjoined from committing waste !lpOn, or otherwise impairing the value of, property in which the comphtinant is interested, even though the property is located abroad,provided a case for the interposition of a court of equity is made out. The affidavits admitted upon the motion disclose a complicated condition of affairs, with an unusual display of personal bitterness. Upon questions of fact so simple as apparently to preclude the possibility of an honest mistake in their statement, the respective affiants flatly contradict each other, and it is hard to escape the conviction that there has been an abundance of false swearing. It appears that in 1883 the government of Venezuela granted to one Fitzgerald a concession, for 99 years, of several hundred thousand acres of land (including the island of Pedernales) situated in the delta of the Orinoco, upon certain terms and conditions. This concession Fitzgerald transferred to the Manoa Com pany . The latter com pany leased to Henry F. Stone tl}at part of the concession known as the island of Pedernales. Stone and his associates created the International Asphalt Company, and subsequently the Pedernales Asphalt Company, to operate under such lease; the island being supposed to be valuable by reason of an asphalt lake therein situated. Subsequently, and .early in 1886, the defendant George Turnbull received from Guzman Blanco, at that time minister and envoy from Venezuela to London and Paris, a concession, or rather a contract to give a concession, including all the territory originally conceded to Fitzgerald. On September 10, 1886, this contract was approved by the president and federal council of Venezuela; the same authorities having, on September 9, 1886, declared. the Fitzgerald contract voin and forfeited. The complainant urges that the new contract is either wholly void as to the Manoa Company, by reason of the circumstances under which it was made, or that it inures to the benefit of the Manoa Company, (complainant's mortgagor,) by reason of the trust relation which it is claimed George Turnbull bore to that company.
The claim that the new contract is wholly void is based '<;>:0. the assertion that was obtained from Blanco. by bribery and ,corruption. The only fact sworn to in support of this'assertion is that on several Occasions Turnbull has stated either that Blanco was his partner in the con, cession, or that he was to give Bllinco "forty-eight per cent. of the fruit , of thecontract." :Whether or not the laws of Venezuela allow her foreign ministers and other government officials itO beC10me interested with foreigners in schemes for developing the resources of the country,nowhere appears, although it seems that Blanco was also interested in the Manoa Company, holding one-fourth of its capital stock, and thltt Gen. Crespo, while president of the republic, was also a stockholder in said company. The defendant Turnbull flatly denies that Blanco is interested with him, (lr that he ever so stated; and as to one interview referred to in complainant's affidavits he is corroborated by the evidence of another witness. This is not a question to be determined on ex pa7'teaffidavits. The vehement and bitter charges and counter-charges with which the affidavits are filled, indicate a state of affairs which can only be safely passed upon at the trial, where the several witnesses may be cross-examined. The claim that the new concession inures to the benefit of the Manoa Company by reason of the trust relation which it is claimed George Turnbull bore to that company is based upon two assertions. In the first place, it iecontended that Turnbull was the real party in interest in the Stone contract, by which the island ofPedernales was leased from the Manoa Company. In the second place, it appears that he was elected treasurer of the International Asphalt Company, which was formed to work that lease, and in which the Manoa Company was a large stockholder. Turnbull denies that he is the real party in interest in the Stone contract, and says that, though elected treasurer of the company, he never acted as such. Without discussing the conflict of testimony thus presented, it is sufficient to say that there is nothing in the affidavits to show that Turnbull or the Pedernales Company are, either of them, in any way interfering with the island of Pedernales, except by claiming are title thereto. The specific acts charged against these the mining of ore from some other part of the original concession. Of course, the duty, if any, which Turnbull owed, as holder of a trust relation to the Manoa Company, was limited to the subject-matter of the Stone contract, and of the International Asphalt Company. The subjectmatter is the island of Pedernales, and the asphalt lake therein. There is nothing shown in the moving papers which calls for the summary granting of a preliminary injunction to restrain defendants' action as to the island and lake, and therefore, in view of the conflict of testimony presented by the affidavits, the determination of the parties' rights should be postponed till the trial. Motion denied.
MILLS V. BURD.
MILLS V. HURD
(No. 532, and Three Other Cases.)
«(lircuit Court,D. Oonnecticut. September 19, 11187.)
Eq,U1TY-PLEADING-:MULTIFARIOUSNESS-PRAYER FOR ACCOUNTING AND INJUNCTION.
Complainant, a stockholder, trustee, and creditor of an unincorporated association, brought a bill against his co-trustees, for the winding up of the I'\ffairs Qf the company on account of gross mismanagement, for an accounting, and the appointment of a receiver; also praying for an injunction against a proposed fraudulent·sale by the trustees of a large portion of the property of the Hel4, that such a prayer did not make the bill multifarious. In a for 1101} accounting by a member of an and praymg anmjunction agaInst a proposed fraudulent sale, It IS proper to make the proposed vendee a party to the suit, alth()l!gh he may have no interest in the accounting.
SAME-ENJOINING SALE-VENDEE PROPER PARTY.
Goodwin Stoddard and H·. C. Robin8lm, for Co. and others, defendants. Wm. a.Oase.and T. M. Maltbie, for John nurd. Wm. A. Unckrwood and A. HcrweU8, for plaintiff.
Rolling Stock .
Smp14AN,J. This is a.demu:rrer to a bill in equity on the ground of multifariousnesa in improperly joining distinct and independent matters in one bill. The facts in the case; ,as they appeared upon the plaintiff's motion for & preliminary injunction, are stated in MiJ18 v. Hurd, 29 Fed. Rep. 410. The bill in No. 532 alleges, in substance, as follows: The plaintiff and the defendant Hurd were the originators of the unincorporated associa.tion or partnership sub modo formed for the purpose of owning and leasing railroad freight cars, known as the Bridgeport Rolling-Stock Association, were the original trustees thereof, and are still trustees. Hurd was and is its president and treasurer. All the stock of said company was issued to him. He furnished to it freight cars which he claimed were nished in exchange for said stock. These shares he afterwards sold to sundry persons. He has had the entire managememt of the moneys and property' of said association. The plaintiff is a stockholder in, and creditor of, said association. Subsequently the defendants Ritchie, Trubee, and Cogswell became trustees. The bill then sets out at length the particulars in which Hurd has mismanaged and misappropriated the property and funds of said association, has failed to render proper and accurate accounts, and has been guilty of a breach of his obligation, as a trustee and manager. It alleges that he has a large amount of its funds in his hands which he refuses to payor account for properly, that there is. no hope of his coming to an honest account with said tion, or voluntarily or honestly distributing its assets, and that said Ritchie,' Trubee. and Cogswell are supine, and either. will not or cannot afford any assistance to the stockholders in this J:'egard. The bill further alleges, that the four. trustees, other than himself, have made an