In other matters the opposition lost no time in appealing to the courts. Previous even to the election two actions had been begun against Henry Villard: the one in September by John Swope of Philadelphia to compel Henry Villard and others to restore stock and bonds obtained as a result of an illegal conspiracy:[599] the other a petition in October by the Northern Pacific Company to force the receivers to bring suit against Messrs. Villard, Hoyt, and Colby to recover nearly $2,600,000 alleged to have been made unlawfully through Northern Pacific deals.[600] The complaints were in the main the same as those which had been made by the investigating committee, and charged, _inter alia_, that Villard had secured a profit to himself by bringing about the purchase of the Chicago terminal properties by the Northern Pacific. Mr. Villard swore that his whole interest in the transaction had been as officer and stockholder and securityholder of the Northern Pacific Company,[601] and the receivers professed themselves ready and willing to bring suit, provided they were furnished with the information and evidence wherewith to prosecute the same.[602] The Court reserved the Ives motion for further consideration, and the following year directed the receivers to bring suit; but the litigation was eventually dropped.[603] In December, 1893, the Ives faction filed a petition for the removal of the receivers. The charges were in part similar to those of the Swope suit. It was asserted that at the time the receivers were appointed the road had practically had no hearing; that its managers had in less than a year burdened it with the interest of $60,000,000 for properties which were of no value to it, but in many of which they were personally interested and out of which they made large profits, and that when insolvency was produced by this fraud they had put the road in the hands of receivers nominated by them for the purpose, with the effect of perpetuating the same control which had brought the bankruptcy. Specific charges were made against Oakes, Villard, and Roswell C. Rolston, president of the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company; no charges were made against Receivers Payne and Rouse, but their removal was asked for because they happened to be in the company of and presumably in the interest of Mr. Oakes. Besides this, finally, it was alleged that separate receivers had been unnecessarily appointed for branch lines, and that the expense of administering the affairs of the company had been enormously increased.[604] The receivers filed lengthy answers on February 3; Receiver Oakes in particular answering every charge specifically, filing exhaustive documents in proof, and maintaining in general the value of the branch properties and his innocence of unlawful profits.[605] The court on the whole inclined to his view. On April 14 Judge Jenkins handed down his decision, dismissing the petition for the removal of Messrs. Payne and Rouse, and holding Mr.