The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-03-30
THE MEMPHIS APPEAL. SATURDAY. MARCH so, 1889.
RAILROAD LITIGATION.
MISSISSIPPI g. TENNEssEs STOCK
HOLDERS ASSERTING RIGHTS.
They object to the Consolidation With
the Chicago, st. Louis 81 New
Orleans Railroad.

A bill was filed in the Chancery Court
yesterday by Simon Borg, Lee Speyer and
Samuel ~Lichtcnbcrger, of New York, com
| posing the firm OF Simon Borg b Co., and
Edward Goldsmith, of Memphis, against the
Mississippi & Tennessee Railroad Company
and Others.
Complainants recite that Simon Borg 4
| Co. own sixty-fve shares Of Mississippi &
Tennessee stock and Edward Goldsmith
twenty'six shares, Of a par value Of $50, and
that the entire capital stock Of said company
is SS25, $3.50. 80.
Complninants show that the Chicago, ST.
Louis e. New Orleans Railroad Company was
leased by the Illinois Central, and that the
Illinois Central purchased several years age
a majority OF the stock Of the Mississippi a
Tennessee, and that said stock Is voted by
said Illinois Central Company at all meet
ings Of the Mississippi 4 Tennessee, thereby
giving the Illinois Central control Of tic
operations of the Mississippi & Tennessee. II
is also alleged that the. Illinois Central, the
Mississippi & Tennessee and the Chicago, st.
Louis n New Orleans companies have the
same set Of directors, managers and officers,
with the exception Of n. II. Sledge, C.. +.
Vance and NJ. Burke, who are put down as
directors of the Mississippi a Tennessee; but
the bill alleges upon information and belief
that the three last named directors ''are
mere lgurehcads, who hold q nero nominal
interest In the Mississippi X Tennessee,
simply 10 give the Illinois Central a legal
status in Tennessee.
The bill farther rccitcs hat 10y order Of
the directors OF the aforesaid railroads, a
meeting was held at Grenada, Miss, March
Z, 1889, for the purpose OF consolidating and
merging the Mississippi 4 Tennessee Rail-
road Company with and into the Chicago,
81. Louis a New orleans Railroad Company,
that at said meeting the Illinois Central
I Railroad Company, owning n majority of the
stock, voted and carried the proposition TO
consolidate the Mississippi a Tennessee with
the Chicago, ST. Louis a New Orleans, which
latter company Is held and operated by the
Illinois Central under a lease.
At the same meeting a resolution was
passed 10 mortgage the Mississippi a Ten
nessee for S3,5OO,OOO. Said meeting was nd
journcd 10 meet again In Memphis March 20,
FOR purposes Of ratification.
COmplninans allcge that the Mississippi
& Tennessee has no power under its charter
to merge with the Chicago, 81. Louis x New
Orleans, and that the consolidation and pro-
posed merger Is for the purpose Of depre-
ciating the stock and rendering Il yalueless.
II Is further alleged that the Mississippi &
Tennessee II already mortgngod for a., 800,
0O1, and was unable TO pay interest on same.
The bill asked for an Injunction restraining
the meeting held here yesterday from rati.
flying the consolidation with the Chicago.
st. Louis a New Orleans Railroad, and from
executing the 81, 10000 mortgage, or from
transacting any business looking In that d.
rection until II shall have been lawfully de-
tcrmincd whether or not the said Mississippi
4 Tennessee Railroad Company has the legal
right 10 consolidate with the Chicago, ST.
Louis a. New Orleans Railroad Company.
After hearing argument on both sides,
Chancellor Estes denied the Injunction upon
condition that the defendant companies give
bond In the sum OF $4,000 each, conditioned
10 pay Ia complainnnts scycrally the par
value OF the stock held by them a. shown In
the bill, with interest thereon from yestcr-
day, In the event the final decree In the
cause shall be against defendants, and other
wise 10 pay such damages rs shall be de.
creed against them, and abide by and per-
form the orders and DEGREES Of the court In
this cause.
The bond was given before II o'clock a.pi.
aud the meeting OF stockholders held with
out hindmncc,