The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1897-04-06

The Action of the Mercantile Trust Conn
pany Against the Seaboard Air Line, in
Which Was Granted Temporary Re.
strajning Order against Cutting Rates,
Dismissed by Judge Hughes-An Init.
nation That an Action. Properly
Brought, Would Lie.
Norfolk, Va, April 2.-Last fall Judge
Hughes of the United States district
court sitting in Norfolk granted upon
application of the Mercantile Trust
Company, of Baltimore, an order re-
straining the Seaboard Air Line and
Southern railways from cutting rates.
Some time ago argument was heard on
a motion to make the restraining order
perpetual. Following is the decision
handed down today:
This is a bill by two trust compa-
MES Of Baltimore, claiming as owners
of about $3.50, 900 of bonds Of the differ
ent roads composing the Seaboard Air
Line system, of which about $1,000
were bonds Of the SeabOard road prop
er and over g. 500, 900 of bonds of the
different roads composing the Atlantic
Coast Line and the Southern railway
systems.
There is no allegation as to the pro-
portion to which the two compliments
own these ponds. The bill makes de-
PENDANTS of the Seaboard and Roanoke
Railroad Company and no other roads
Of it's system and various other roads
connected with the Atlantic Coast Line
and Southern railway systems. 1t al
Ieges with some am~plification that a
n yyo~ hoe o~f~n hot Wy tho Goo
board system and the Southern SYSTEM;
| that the result is runious to their bonds
secured on these different roads, and
it prays the court to stop it. To this
bill a demurrer was filed by the Sea
board. Some of the other defendants
entered a general ppearance and the
others answered. When the bill was
filed a temporary restraining order was
issued.
On March 10th the case came up for
! hearing on bill and demurrer. On that
day a bill, called by compliments a
supplemental bill, was filed alleging a
demand On the Mercantile Trust Com
pany, of Baltimore, trustee of the Sea-
board bonds, and it's refusal to bring
suit on the grounds stated in the orig
inal bill, but not making it a party de-
PENDANT. One Of the compliments also,
by leave Of court, interviewed as trus-
tee in some of the mortgages and the
same leave was granted to the Cen
trail Trust Company and the Farmers
Loan and Trust Company, intervening
as trustees of many million dollars in
bonds, none Of them being SeabOard
bonds. demurrer were promptly filed
to these new papers and an order was
entered setting all these demurrers
down for argument the next day and
the case vas deliberately argued upon
the grounds raised by these demur-
rers.
AS far as the SeabOard system is on
cerned, the object of the bill is TO en-
join it from reducing rates on the ad-
mitted theory that through it the in
junction will operate over the entire
system to Atlanta.
It appears that the Releigh and Gas
railroad is, with the SeabOard, lessee of
the Georgia, Carolina and Northern.
Neither the Raleigh and CASTOR nor
the Georgia, Carolina and Northern
are parties, and yet I am asked to en-
join rates over them On the mere allie
cation that the SeabOard, by virtue of
owning a majority of the Raleigh and
CASTOR stock, Controls them. Mere
ownership Of stock i in no legal sense,
a control and it is elementary law in the
federal courts that there is no jurisdic-
ton to enter a decree directly affecting
the right Of absent parties.
In such case the court has no alter
native but to dismiss the bill.
1t is equally clear the trustee in the
mortgage securing the SeabOard and
Roanoke bonds is a necessary party in
the federal courts, when any two bono
holders ranged on different SideS might
defeat the jurisdiction, the doctrine
that the trustee represents them all is
too vital to be frittered away. And a
mere allegation or demand and refusal
is not sufficient, for any adjudication
would not bind him and the defendant
might be veXed with a second suit in
his name. And besides, he is entitled
to a day in court to show why he re-
fused and to take charge of the litiga-
ton at any subsequent stage if he sees
fit. l think also that the original bill
is multifariOuS, as combining diSc0n-
neCted causes of action against differ
ent defendants, and that this vice is
flagrantly aggravated by the addition
al interventions and amendments.
For these reSOns, / will enter a decree
sustaining all the demurrers and dis
missing the bills and petitions. 1 must
confess an inclination to the opinion
that on a prope bill with proper par
ties, a court may put a stop to q
ruinOus rate war, but as this case goes
off on a question Of jurisdiction. / make
no rulings on that point.