Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-03-13
TOBACCO co. WINS.
vICE-CHANCELLOR REED DIS
MISSES THE DILL AGAINST III.
PRESENT LITIGATION ENDED.
Points Raised by the Ccmp!ninnnts
and the Views of the Courf-Syl-
Iabus Attached to the De-
cision.

TRENTON, y. j., March i2.-In the
the American Tobacco Company ana
break up what is known as the ITO
bacco Trust" Chancellor Reed
this morning filed an opinion dismiss
ing the BILL and ending the present liti-
cation against the company. In the
language OF the Vice-Chancellor, the ac-
ton was brought Ito restrain the de-
PENDANTS from transacting their business.
and from conducting it in a manner
prejudlcial TO the complainants, and in
furious TO the people Of the State of
New Jersey" The bill was filed by
Attorney-General Stockton, on the petit
ton of John r. and Frank w. Miller,
jobbers in paper cigarettes, with whom
the American Tobacco Company refused
10 deal. according to the allegation of
the Milers, because they persisted In
also handling the Admiral cigarette,
manufactured by rival corporation.
Among other things the bill filed set
out that for many years prior to Janu-
airy q, 1885, the manufacturers compos-
ing the American Tobacco Company
transacted business Independently Of
each other. The trust was then formed,
being composed of William S. Kimball
and James r. Hart, under the firm
name of w S. Kimball & Co.. of Roches-
ter; Charles G.. Emery. under the firm
name Of Goodwin & Co., Of New York;
Allen & Ginter. of Virginia; the w.
Duke & Sons Company. of North
Carolina, and the Kinney Tobacco Com
pany. Of New York. The capital stock
was $4,000 600, and they have been sell
ing 95 per cent OF all the cigarettes sold
in the country.
The complainants alleged that soon af-
ter they began dealing in Admiral
cigarettes, they received a ccmmunica-
ton from the American Tobacco Com
pany. which expressed their displeasure.
This was followed by a refusal Of the
American Tobacco Company to sell them
more goods
THE OPINION.
Vice-Chancellor Reed holds that an
equity court has no jurisdiction; that the
proceedings should have been brought
in the nature Of quo warranto, and that
corporations have a right. when legally
formed, to deal just as individuals do.
The points raised by the coniplainants,
and Vice Chancellor Reeds fTl views
may be inferred from the following syl-
labus. which he has attached 10 the de-
clsion:
Il. A court Of equity does not possess
the power to restrain a corporation or
ganlzed under the forms Of law from per-
forming acts within its corporate power,
merely because some Of the steps taken
i'm organizing the company may have been
irregular or because the purpose of the
corporators may have been to establish
a monopoly
"2. Under these conditions. quo war
ranto is the proper proceeding to chal-
lenge the right Of the corporation to ex-
ercise its franchise.
90. A trading or manufacturing corpo-
ration. until its charter is annulled by
such a proceeding at law, has the same
authority as an individual trader or man
ufacturer to sell or consign its goods TO
select it's selling agents, and TO impose
conditions as TO whom they shall sell,
and the terms upon which they shall
sell.
Il. A decree restraining the officers
and agents Of a corporation from exc
cutting corporate acts is the same as a
decree enjoining the corporation itself"
r. V. Lindabury, Of Elizabeth. and
Joseph Choate, Of New York, conducted
the case for the American Tobacco Com
pany.