, 1865-02-12
cugeAeo AND northwestern
RAILROAD CONSTELLATION.
The Notion for In Junction Against tho Elcr-
ticn Of DIreters, &C., for the G. l. c. Q.
B, &. Refused.


Wednesday, on motion by the directoa OF th
Chicago and Northwestern Railroad to epjoin th
minority stockholders OF tbs old Chicago mi
Galena Union Railroad from elcct1ng Board O
l Directors:
"The complainants in the bill arc Trustees 0
the NorthwcsteTn Railway Company-the Disec
ihc siocEhoiders Of the Old. a. thsy claim. thica
l 70 and Galena Union Railway Company. and .
few Of tho stockholders Of the Northwestern
iii II thelr d Own s' risht + The b eaes on an; @
sets forth the rc.ioEs charters which wsrs oo
1ained by the Chicago aud Galena Union R,ilwa,
taincd By the Nortt twestern Railway Company
by which 1t appears It had the power Of consoli
dation under certain carcpTstsnce7 IN, "his5 hMi
fafhes aes aess. ah.t tbe
chicago Union RAILWAY Company, and ertil hold
other parties who lsse no Interest in eitaes com
pany, have fled bill IN tie United States clrcn!i
Court to set aside the conso'idauon which both
soiiaation both roads. with ali The branches ard
other connecting roaae, were coaso'da.ed INTO
one corporation nnde. tho name Of t6e NoSsn,
% VAS legal ] consol.datloa' This Is t6e enbstincc
Of the allegations. II also alleges tha' these par.
ues who arc defendants here 5nd some o! Eng tr'c3
Court, have thrcst.ned to elect new board ~, ~
der the name Of the Beard of DIRECTORS 0! me
Chicago nnd Ga1cna Union lta1t*H5 company nu1
that they hare given notice in The PUBLIC papssa; 7; TO-
tha: effect, copy Of which is to the mn
also, another printed paper. 4; which naE1her o.
the eamc indtvduals havs maae s@esn' Thav
claim that to permit them to meet toselnef and
elect directors, won]d do '.lrreparab'e injury" to
the Northwestern Railway Coapany.
rcnnrable injury amounts to nothing, toE the
reason that It 1a 4 legal conclusion. A man does
not aGmit legal conclusions WIN ne deMnra to
! l,t]l or when he mikes motion to dismiss TOR
want Of equity. There must be facts alleged from
| which a court infcrs - ir1epurabe INJURY The
iiaereiiSn ~ Of "a court Formeris, for n It was granted
with great le.1 ofreluctaaee, buf In these days
of iorpg America md progress It is one
s,ost cyery occasion, @ evca when every chancellor
| says and repeats every time he Issues it. that .
writ Of injunction is the ''st7ong arm Of equity"
court, question whether under all tue cireun-
stances. court should Issue It. There are, IN.
donbtsdl,, oeeasions when court viii in!es ',ir
reparablc injury" from general sta'emcnts, hut
they must be Of character, which from the nature
Of things, mtss result in irrep7ratle ntary,'' or
eaass sH heS SoS prds.sa i e ae9 a III e. se1 de-
threaten to-if they haye meeting and have a
good time generally. and pass resolutions
on the rgase site Of 5 pubic and tb,o o. 1s
they may see at to do 60. thnt II will not amount
to anything, legally. Tia: l., the bill alleges
that u the act, II performed, wonid b. a void net;
names uf Directors Of the Chicago and Ga,cna
Union Railway Company, they wou1d have no more
power 70 act rs snSl. thin any outsider; and this
necessarily be base on The allegation and assump-
ton thst me consolidation wasa legal consollda-
s at hays Il To1
to nothing; TINT it wonld at ieast be void. They
hare admitied aIeo that they have attempted to
Eli, there arc not i any = details In In It It
which, Of themselves conehsute the nee.
essav steps to be taken in order to make con-
snth statement as they are bornd By. The mere
aEc hot bound b: It Because i is iesa! concla-
sion. No rule f. better settled than that party
docs not admit upon motion, OF upon demurrer
that he does not admit lrGnt conclusions Of the
parts at all; Otherwise there never Iou1d be
demurrer In cny court. The party slwars swcars to
enough Law to SUSTAIN his c1se-iu ui1ie cases out
or tea he will 60 swear.
If / understand the bill. it docs not alleec in
terms that the acts necessary to constlt1ta con-
solidaton have been gone through with seriufim.
1t merely alleges that The two todics or companies
met together and consolidated. Where th:rs Is
"1r1epnr1hfe injury the court will grant the
party relief and 1t is upon this ground II is appar-
ent GId patent On the lace OF II that at Inv, son
cal not get redress for an i11epazablc injury: or
course as The law can't give redress IN a
given c:sc, court Of equity has juris-
diction. It Is Eaid that the grievances COM
plaileas Of here are & & character, :li; wh!ch
parable injury multiplicity Of suits either Of
which grounds are sufficient in equity. Reference
Is made to the 10Th H., p s39. In which Judge
authority Of Inv, acd in public capacity, having
Lone what the law authorized them to DO, where
appears from The acts III s1nsg!ycs that it would
lead 10 multiplicity Of quits, the Court viii in
tt1fere. think the opinion there, fe not oaly
sus.a,nahle upon the ground assumed oy the
Court, hut clearly on many olhcr grounds; for the
lsct that he was public officer and had done the
ac. 1T was authorized to d. had made him fausctus
dssstand The. law is well. settled, that IN
| snch n case the Court will Iestraia ,he party
injury to tfd person not an ir1cpazabie injury,
but such IN injuIy that would lead to the concln-
sion Of multiplicity Of law suits, go it would no.
case, 1t strikes nc, are very different from those
here, although the I'LL alleges that tho stock
| wopid be depreciuted. ......
| common sense, and a Jndge c,1y assumc to know
something outside Of the herecosdand It strikes me-
that position is answered ey the acts this case.
This record shows that the suit pendin: in ano,h.
suit Lss been r0mmencsl-comlnenced before
| mis- WIS commenced. That 1t is nkciy to be
menced in The United Stascs Court and not IN \
small court like this. is probable II published
scen it IN less than two and perhaps all Of III.
papers Of the city. 1t fs Mnttcr of general no.
toIiety md caEno: soRssivc how f1tss injury
nnent Of TINT suft might depreciate thn. stocss,
| but, emit understand how the calling together
of this meeting would dep.ec!ate i my more, for
the reason that the parties Etaud in precisely the
same relatlon-thciF position j. unchanged. Il Is
merely another moTe On the chess-board. hut the
parties stand IN the came hostile attitade, claim
Eides. In one case by detailed statement they set
forth in trtenso their rights, and, as assume, be
wonid not hsve been worth "shncEs" il II Il were ere
NOT alleged In it-1hty allcee in 1t these proceed
ings weFs unauthorized b iax. and deny that the
enetfn. corporation. Well now there they state
all these facts In erttxso, and they are made
known. Here all they do is to meet and elect
tors Of the road' sm bound to Look st the Whole
case as it stands on the record, and can't sec
how the election Of these Directors will deprc-
the nins Of this bill. II mikes new Issue, ana
ii IT is void IT hurts nobody, unlessI eau get in
come way m iIrcparab:c damage or eon5ure up
But there is another rule which 1t scems to rne
Is fatal to the objection. The general rule Is in
1sc 60 numerous. and hare been so often repeated,
1t is hardly worth whitley that Court OF chsacery
shall not interfere, except In particular cases to
stancc. man may have a deed, and put It On the
record, from a man living In kamschatka- who
lad no sort OF title to the property. The deed
record deprccatet the mao's title, ,hc court would
regard 1t, and remove tasa cloud. There are j
number Of cases q that kind, where the Court IN
terferes, but as understand It no ca.e except
where some au1il.arT principle comes in play.
The general principle Is that Court viii not
eranf It's a!l 70 enjdin yoid act but. will hold
perceive what great damage this would be.
Then have another objection to this case,
whieh suppose may consider here as this is
matter Of dfcretion with me. It is that this very
came matter il before another Court competent to
administer full reliefin all particulars. The PSF
tics ave voluntarily gone in there. and that Court
and 81 the suhject matter so far ss understand
1t. Being Court competent to sett1e the whole
s yos SossGn a 1e,bg , The
tl,t outslde md litlc n Injunction in
"a e 3ne G5ee, GSss
intcrfcreDcee from outside psrt1es. It wo1id be
etranre sate Of things, II in suits pending here,
and the Court had 10 power to protect Tic rights
Of the parties 1iligaut befurc the Court having ID
risaietiot Of the jcci matter The CONTROVERSY
understood 1t Is done every day This IS court
Of equity, is net bound by l,reccdcnt.; hut It is
very true llni even in discretionary na:te1z courts
follow the precedent, though they could not fol-
| conflict, hut they eldcaror 10 follow what they
consider the hest aeiudica:ed cases. Cases may
arise, in which court q chancey might make
ssf =
nov. Not that thcre IS any with me, for an will
ing to acknowledge all courts arc more able than
mine; but there Is jealousy surely, and It would
require very strong case TO induce nc to inter
fere with the Circuit Court. don't interfere in
! any Hny to entoil their proceedings, unless they
nuke clear showing that It IL impossible to get
| relief through their officers.
The ssme rule has obtaiaed IN relation to the
Cnited Sites District and Circuit Courts, and in
all. az understand this ca.c. am OF the sams
| opinion that the compliments are, that II they
have good technical consideration under the Law
if that Is tho fssue-then It Is clear that this pro-