The temporary securing of their position by the receivership allowed the Danville people to hit back at the Central in its weakest point— the details of the sale to the Terminal of the Georgia Central Company. On August 19 the Advisory Committee of Seventeen of the Terminal securityholders declared that the investigations of their sub-committee showed that certain trustees of the company, with their friends, had profited to the extent of between three and four million dollars in this operation.[371] Toward the end of the year tender of the Georgia Company stock and bonds was made back to the original vendors and was refused.[372] In December suit was begun to set aside the purchase on the ground that there had been no ratification sufficient in law or equity to bar the stockholders from cancelling the transaction. The plaintiff charged that “the said combination and plan so formed by and between its president and divers of its directors [referring to the purchase of the Georgia stock], confederating with the other syndicate defendants for the purpose of selling their unsalable and discredited securities to the plaintiff at such prices as yielded them an enormous profit and necessarily imposed on plaintiff a heavy yearly loss, was contrary to equity and good conscience, and that the pretended contract dated October 26, 1888, ... and all the acts done in pretended purchase of the stocks and bonds of said Georgia Company ... and the taking from the assets and money of the plaintiff of over $7,000,000 cash ... to put into the pockets of the said faithless directors, the syndicate defendants, and their confederates, were all acts planned ... and performed by said Inman, or under his direction, in the execution of such original fraudulent scheme, combination, purpose, and confederacy....” And so the plaintiff prayed the court to decree the contract of purchase void.[373] These accusations and counter-accusations, justified though many of them were, had little direct bearing on reorganization. In this progress had completely ceased. At the same time some progress was urgently required. The Richmond Terminal, the Richmond & Danville, and the Central of Georgia were in the hands each of a different set of receivers, unpaid interest was piling up, and the year 1893 was to show a marked decline in earnings. Necessity and mutual distrust dictated a second appeal to Drexel, Morgan & Co. to undertake the rehabilitation of the property. On February 2, 1893, the following letter was addressed to the firm in question: Messrs. Drexel, Morgan & Co.,