Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1871-11-24

contemplated to be done twelve
months before the complainant pur-
chased his stock i'm the road, ana The
| former owner of his shares was n IIar-
ticipant in part of the proceedings
! which led to defendants action. Com
plainant had full notice of what de-
PENDANTS were about to do, and If. uti-
der these circumstances, he purchased
his stock in the Virginia ( Tennessee
Railruad Company I've voluntarily
put his Interest in jeopardy, and can
not call upon the Court TO exercise its
r. Extraordinary powers To protect him,
pending n suit Ia determine his jeop-
ar,lrd rights, which had been III dam
ger, if all, twelve months before he
Voluntarily purchased them.
Ii is manifest To the Court that the
danger of loss tn defendants in case
the Court should exercise the power
invoked, if at the final hearing its
judgment should tie for Defendants, is
likely to be more serious and irrepara
lle than any possible loss To Complain
ant.
Credit 10 delicate thing. Conf
deHre I'm the power and right of De-
PENDANTS TO nake the pledges they
have made To raise the money author
lied Ivy the Act of June IL, 10, is alb
sOlutcly necessary To the success oithe
loan,
In this suit defendants have ut stake
millions of dollars. while the COM
plainant at the commencement of the
action had but five shares of stock,
which he alleges in his bill are i'm i'm
Il Of Il. in
value by defendants conduct, which
danger was not great enough To pre-
vent his purchasing fifty shares more
since the suit began.
Under these circumstances the Court
is of the opinion that the complaint
hns no right To to ask the Court to ex-
ercise this extraordinary power.
Whatever rights or interests the
complainant may have are in no dan
ger uf great or irreparahle loss
They may I've determined and sccur-
ed ut the final hearing, without the
aid OF II preliminary INDUCTION, and the
Court will refuse the motion.
Judge Rivcs then followed. in all
opinion which embraced wider view
of the subject than WAS taken by
Judge Bond. We We're unable To oh
tain a copy of il, however, ns ii was
not written. As we understood the
Judge, his opinion cove rel srbstau-
TALLY the following points:
That tie Atlantic, Mississippi &
Ohio Company and its offics RS should
have been made parties defendant ia
ihe suit, md that while tins WAS not
denied. tho interests Involved were so
vast, that the Court would feel justified
i'm sayiLg that If they mad hcrn eXriu-
died. the present decision in the case
would not he materially affected.
That the Act of Consolidation was
permissivc and not mandatory: that
no dissenting stakeholder could te re-
qurcd to merge his stock i'm the new
Company except upon terms of bis
making and that it was not of a char
acter tn impair the rights of the conf
plainant. because remedy i'm the
court was always open 20 him. where
he would never fail To secure the full
value of his stock. which in this view
Of the ease wa. the extent of he rights
which pertained to dissenting cor
poratOr. Hence. substantially. there
was no reason Ia consider the act lille
gal and voi,i. That the opinion OK
pressed l,y Judge Bond net with his
approval, ard that the prayer of the
complainant could not, Therefore, lie
granted.
We are gratifipd 10 he able to note o
termination Of this great legal cOntro-
vrrsy which is so mu.h in accord will,
the general sentiment of the cOmmu-
! ity, so far as our observation has en-
ablcd us to judge.