The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1866-11-09
John Rand OF ais, Petitioners, vs.. Grand
ar Trunk Railway ct ais. ur

This case was heard before Judge Tnp'
ley Of the Supreme Court a, Chambers
Tho petitioners arc trustees Of certain bond
holders Of the Atlantic & 81. Lawrence
Railway Co. aud hold for the benefit Of
such hond-holders mortgage Of portion
of the road and other property ofthe Com.
pany. The Grand Trunk Railway Co. are
the Lcssces of the Atlantic 4 81. Lawrence
Railway Go. ,-1.... r.irr a..
The time limited for the payment Of the
bonds having expired the trustees demand.
cd possession Of the property mortgagcd ia
them. The respondents refused to surrcn'
der to, or allow the petitioners to take pos
session Of the properly. The petitioners
theenpon commenced process in equity
and among other things asked the court to
cnjoin the respondent from preventing
them from taking possession Of the proper
~ notgnged. The question before Judge
Tapley was upon granting such injunction
preliminary TO final hearing on the bill.
The case was argued by John Rand Esq
for the petitioners, and Ex Judge Howard,
kcc & Davis, & Hon. Phineas Barnes1o
for respondents.
The preliminary Injunction WINS denied
and we copy from :he Press the opinion OF
Judge Tapley. ,r7 "
MEMO. ny TAPIEY, il have examined
with rs much care ms other pressing judi.
cial engagements would permit, the many
points raised in this controversy, and after
consultation with such of my associates MS
was able to meet, have concluded to ,le.
cline to order The writ OF injunction.
The principal object OF the bill isto obtain
the all of tile Court In getting possession
of certain property describe,i in tho mort.
gage deed to the petitioners. The actual
possession Of this pOpeny under the mort.
gage, being the point m7iniy desired. It Is
equally rs well attained by the preliminary
decree of injunction ~ by final decree ;
consequently the principal IL not the sole
object of The bill would le Obtained before
answer to the hill and hearing thereon.
The ordinary office Of the preliminary
Injunction Is TO hold the parties In the same
position pending the bill, In which they mr.,
found at its commencement. The effect Of
mn Injunction In this cnse would be 10
change the position Of the parties, or IL
would he useless. T.t L,'.
In Deklyn' vsr Davis, Hopk. Rep. lbs IN.
Y, Clanccry Rcp.) it Is said Where pos
session Is tie principal object of the suit,
and would give n very important advantage
to either party, the possession cannot he
transferred from one party to the other Ivy
means Of M er pa,te preliminary lnjuInc-
,ion." Although this proceeding Is not er
parte, il Is one preliminary to hearing up
on the merits, and while do not mean to
say that an injunction involving such con-
sequences " cannot" he granied upon a
preliminary hearing, do think Il would TO
q,iire a very strong cnse, amounting TO at
most necessity, TO warrant the exercise OF
that power in such u case.
The other points in defense, raised aud
argued, do not appear to inc ut this time us
presenting any insuperalhs objections to the
naintcuance Of the Bill. An examination
Of them Mt this time Is not necessary, and
therefore defer the discussion Of them un.
iii occasion may require It. | cannot rs.
sumo, that upon answer aud proofs, tho case
will stand ~ now presented. IL could, q
discussion Of oil tho questions raised might
have become proper, and different result
reached upon this hearing.