New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-03
THE COURIS.
TIE MUTUAL UNION TKUSTEESHIP.
HE INJUNCTION GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE WEST
ERN UNION DISSOLVED.

THE INJUNCTION GRANTED IN FAVOR OF THE WEST
ERN UNION DISSOLVED.
Justice Barrett, in the Supreme Court,
Chambers. Yesterday handed down decision on the
motion rec ny made before him 10 continue the ten
porary Injunction which had been granted In The suit
nv Jay Gould and Western Union telegraph
Company against the Mutual Union Telegraph Company,
and John G. Moore, George F. Baker, George
w Balou aud others 20 restrain the COM
pany from transferring TO the deiendants
aker Baou and another trustees certain shares oil
Mutual Union stock. The complaint recited that jay
Gould In July last entered INTO contract with the hrn
~ John O. Moore Co by which they In behalf OF them
s,ves ana their associates should purchase majority
nj the shares of the companys Stock which were to be
held by Mr.. Gould and Mr.. Baker as trustees Mr.
Gould and Mr. Baker were TO have the sole power
for a specIfed period OF time to sell or dispose
OF the stock AS q part OF this agreement MI Go'
was to cause certain suits against tie company to DC
discontinued. Mr. GOuld alleged hat the stock was
bopght and that he Lad the suits discontinued. The
agreement amounted 1t said ITO trust, This trust
tue defend were conspring TO Vloate Dy
their share o. stock covered By 1t TO persons hOse 10
Mr. Gould and FOR PURPOSES llJur9nsg anee.g 5ne
Interest OF the western Snoa se mn dhsi
whatever the agreement mentioned IN the c4hiS n5
GaSd himself wno IN violation OF It had sold his stock
10 the Western Union Company having lut an emu 70
thst otbers SHOULD repeat it, Mr.. Gould met this de-
fence the assertion that he had MOI sOd ms 70
"a
Tho stock as me authorized agent OF the company and
mat ibis was so understood by the finn OF John g.
Moore d Co. ..u. at an .o ,ro,,
IN susiain this Injunction Although the papers are
volnninous ond the briefs elaborate, the point is In
marrow COMPASS. Whatever may nave Deen uesg.eu,
ssocIae OF Mr. Gould III the contract OF March, 1882
That il was such associate was the understanding OF
the parties UNDERSTANDING lay at tue very ROOT oil
sLe nc gOtiatiOn. Consequently the sale ny Mr.
could OF bis shares TO the company was
an independent transaction This Is clearly
eeXtnced by The company's own records. And
a. seems 10 e to be too clear admit OF argument that
III ne,ependent sale, especially to tue plaintiff com
rany Out an end to what may be called the pooling ar
ren,ltted 10 his original rights and the speculative
AGENCY OF Mr Gould and Mr. Baker terminated 10 Is
equally plain that the parties aced upon ths Theory,
for upon withdrawal by Mr. Gonil Oi nus SHARES ON
the depository bank, they also except MI, mr.,
Baker Withdrew theirs and since tnen
nothing whatever has been done by the
lie plaintiffs has night to subject the defendants
shares 10 the operation oil an agency CT trust "e was
Ignored Of them In tie mere creation OF The gns
o Tie other ana which is both Obsolete anu IMPOSING
of executions The defendants are as ree TO dispose Ol
their shares unammeiled by the p0olpg ARRANGEMENT
as WAS Could IL follows, without considering any other
Should be denied and tie temporary injunction as
solved" ,.. .,..,,,,o ra,oo.onh
Company placed In the hands OF three trustees
for i've years. aud II proposed To deposit these
shares In the Central Trust Company and to Issue
for them trust receipts devoid OF 'o'ihs power,
i irasi. bat before IT had been deposited
with the trust company, the Injunction When
IS dissolved was ootIineeu. :, gu .ioD
by The officers OF the Mutual Union Company Ihcy sau,
However that they had expected no other result Inc
Injunction had caused 10 deiay, tIney SAL
e took stil remained yesterday IN the hands of the
trustees aid 40 action was taken In regard " H.