, 1865-02-13
CHICAGO AND NORTHWESTERN
RAILROAD CONSOLIDATION.
The Motion for 1njuEeii Against the Ele.-
tlon Of Directors, &e., fer the G. h CT.
B. Z. Refused.

4
the Northwestern Railway company-the Dircc.
tors Of the Northwestern Railway Company, aud
the stockholdere Of the Old, as they claim. GhIca
few Of the stockholders OF the Northwestern
blil y ~ thelr ei owa light: The BIZ, goes on a1d
Company, and also those charters which were o.
sS It e q
dation under. certain circumstances Which
are. act. forth IN the bill. The bill
were osignally stoekholde1s IN the Galena uad
| chicago Tnlon RAILWAY Company, and still hold
that stock, not Lar3ng Surrendered it. and certain
pary, bare flied bill IN tie United Stafes Circuit
Court TO fct aside the consolidation which both
companies hase assnmed TO make, by which con,
other connecting roads, were consolidated into
one corporation under the name OF the North
Of the allegations Il also alleges that these par
ties who are defendants here, and some Of WHOM
arc conplainan1s before The United States District
der the name OF the Beard OF Directors Of the
Chicago and Galcrn Onion Railway Company, and
6at t9s5 havs ye9 nese In the gsf; 81 III t.
also, another printed pancr, In Which number OF
the SANG fndividuals have made stateneut to the
Claim ihat to permit thcm to meet together and
c1ect directors, would do "lr1cparnble tnjury"t to
the Northwestern Railway Company.
,spa1sbie % i1,insy % an amonna m - 10 nothing, for tie
reason that 1t ia legal conclusion, A man docs
not adm't legal conclusions when he demurs to a
want OF equity. There must be facts alleged from
which a court infers '' irreperable injury" The
granting Of m Injunction Is a matter within the
with great deal Of reluctance, but in thesa d,ys
one Of The most common thin:s-sranted on a.
eays ana repeats every time be issnes it, hat a
writ ofinjuEction is the 'strong urn Of cguity''
Eut after all, it's matter Of discretion before the
esancse. . court ehouId 1ssue it There nre, IN.
doubtedly. occasions when court will infer ttir-
rcparablc injury" from general statements, In.
ofttiIsr, must result ID .srreparaSls Injury" or
msy 50 result: Now It is alleged that these de-
Pendants, Y they proceed and Do al that they
good tine generally, md pass resolutions
On the state OF the public, and on their
own private account. OF my thing else,
to anything, legally. Tha. L, the bill alleges
That the aet II performed, would be q void act;
thctif they went on aud elected mcn under the
Union Railway Company, they wonla hayc no more
Is based upon an allegation II the hill, and must
ion TIT the consolidation Was Legal eonsolida-
zion under the law: Theparties hare admitted for
the PURPOSES Of this motivn that 1t would amount
e e. IL sf se1 TT IT. ee stsed afa e
make the consolidation. But as understand the
the,e .s 19t any astas hs In II
essary steps to be takenin order to make a con
| solidatiop under the law; and II go, there is no
snch statement as they are bound By. The mere
allegation that y was legal is not sufficient They
sion. No rule il better settled than That parry
docs not admit rpon motion, or upon demnrer--
that he does not admit legal conclusions Of the
demurrer In any court. The party. always swcars to
enough Inv to sustain l;s case-in nine cases ont
| Of ten he will 80 swear.
terna that The nets necessity TO constitute CON
ss sd s saa1oSas6 s ss e1e e1e Is
party relief end Is upon this ground Il is appar
ea1 Fedess II :sf N II t a
course ~ The law can't give redress u
p pieined 81 here Il "a are %. et M chstae.ei, WHICH,
from the yers natu9c Of things will result in ire
parable injury or IN multiplicity of suits either oi
Is made 10 .hc 4o.L III, p. sa9, in which Judge
Treat decides TINT, where persons acting under
authority Of law, and in public capacity, barring
they undertake to do it over again. and where u
appears from the acts themselves that 1t Would
lend 10 multiplicity Of suits the Court Will In
te1ferc. ! think the opinion there. is not only
eusta1nahlc upon the ground assumed hy the
Court, bu! clearly on many other grounds; tor The
1sct thst he was public officer and had done The
eNelo-1hc cct Amounted to nothing at all. un'
defstand the law is well settled, that In
such case the Court will restrain The party
injury to third person; not an irrsparable injury,
but such an tujuly that would lead 10 the conciu.
sion Of q multiplicity Of law suits SO It would not
F1r Hrf Prr5y%H fr~r rf fFNt
csee, II strikes nc, arc very different from those
| here, although tho bill alleges that the stock
would h. deprecated; ~. r.u.,
common eense, and Judge may assnme TO- know
something outside Of tic II trkes NE
thst penn Is ,s " the ctH IN ns y
Ct court involves precisely this question That
sni, las been commeneed-conEcnced before
Known, md the more SO because il was COM
menecd in the United states Court and not in .
email court like this is probable II published
seen ii il no less than two and perhaps Ill Of The
papers Of The city. 1t IL matter Of general no.
rssa
ncnt Of that suit might depreciais TINT stock.
but, ! emit understand how the calling together
The reason that tie parties stand IL precisely he
| same 1elauon-lhcfr position II unchanged. It ts
merely another move on the chess s-boara but tho
parties etaud in the sane hostile attitude, clafm-
| Ing the same legal and equitable rights on both
ridcs. In one case By detailed statement thc5 set
forth in ttenso their rights and. rs assume, be.
! would not have been worth II ssehuCks" If it were
not alleged In t-they allege in it these proceed
were b l.T and deny shaf
edeung corpotaton- Well now there they state
MI these falts IN trttxso, and they are made
known. Here a1l they do Is TO meet and elect 4
set OF men who, they eay, arc the present Direc-
tors Of the road. an bound to look at the whole
case a. it stands on the record, and I CANT sec
bow Tie election Of thsse Directors vii! dsp5e,
the filing Of this bill. il makes no new Issue, md
does not change the relations Of the parties, and
ie roid Il hurts nohoay, nn.sss fan get IN
Ent there is another rule which It seems to mc
10 r. 1es1 to 1hs
II ia hardly worth while) that Court Of Chaucety
aoa Rei xoa fhee arc
stance, a uan nu5 hare . decd, and put It on the
record, from a uasn living In Kansehatk1, who
il void: hut ina.much as TIC deed npon the
record dcprec1atce the mans ttic, the court would
regard 1t, md remove 1t a. . cloud There are a
terfercs, but, as understand IT 10 case except
where come auxiliary principle comes IN play.
The gene5nl principle is ~; iat acs G91rt S vi Ml a no.
the party to his remedy. 1csrtainl5 an unable ia
percctye what great damage this wonah BE-,
Hsn hxs ano1r to f
matter Of discretion with me. II IL that this very
eame nGttcr1s before another Court competent Ia
administer l rsltefin all p,faes's IA .a, The ra5t
las got Jurisdiction. ut any rate, Of the complaints
and Of the subject matter 60 far as | understand
matter, aid dis ye1y Question beng the question
wl1ch Involves the whole git Of this controyecy,
thinA It ought 10 be . very strong case to have
this outside and little Court Issue en- injunction In
l NfA IF nuf{HfHtHDu
r Court is competent to protect itself from
interferenees from outside parties. It Won1d b.
men should get together and complicate the enit
and tho Court had no power to protect the neht
Of the parties lsig4nt bcforc tho Court ha;ing Ju
rlsdicon Of the subject Hatter oI the controversy
understand 1t fs done cvesy day. This, as cour
Of equity, is not bound by p7eccdents; but 1t Il
yery true dat even IN discretionary matters court
low o1l of them, bcc1nEe there nte great many 1,
conflict, but they cndcaror to follow what the!
| consider The best adjudjcatcd caseB. Cases ma
a,iae, IL which court Of chanccry might make
precedent should moi hesitate to nl:se prece
dent, II 1t we're necessary II an outsider were t
would trest Il as ccnt.mp,, or would IN som
way reaet the man. There is sufficient jsalons
Net that thcsc =, any 9Th for 'Hn a T
.nine; hut lete e Jealousy surely, and It woul
require xeE{ strons ssss to Induce % ne TO Int
INV INV was @ to enjoin tneir proceedings, une.s tho
mike c1car showing that it Is impossible to Ct
, relief through their officers.
, The eamc rule has obtained In relation to th
. CnIt.d Stiles District and CIRCUIT Courts, and
all. az understand this case. an Of the San
! opinion that the comp'alnants are, that 4 tae
Ii 1taf is the iesue-then 1t IL clear TINT this pr
, cee5lpr will be void. u they have moi, then u
!. minority will have the advantage. That's gus
: | fInn I oueht nor and cannot, lnrc not the mea!
. al deciding, beeause the fncts constituting Il
transfers and consolidation arc not before ne g
III were ever SO much Inclined 70 decide tnfs que
-. -. Sr3rrr+,n1 1>pfore Judge DfuUmp1d Corl