The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-04-03
ROADS MAY CUT RATES
Judge Hughes Hands Down His Decision In
The Sea board Case.
He OISSoLvEs HIS OWN INJUNCTION

(RE DISS0LVES HIS OWN INJUNCTION
On tho Ground that ihc mi +. Faulty
The Question. Also Gncs OFF on iI,c
Question OF Jurisitctfon, -. Have
All Other Cut Hate Injumciions-
Fail Text or Decision.
The celebrated litigation growing out
OF the injunction granted by Judge
Hughes. CT the United States District
Court here, In the case Of tile AIercan-
tile Trust company vs. the Seaboard
Air Line, is ct last settled and the in
Junction has been dissolved This
leaves the roads free TO cut rates again,
but IL is not known yet whether they viii
take advantage OF the opportunity or
not.
The injunction is dissolved Gil grounds
thai the bill Is faulty in the multiplicity
OF charges made, and also on the ground
OF jurisdiction as to the point raised In
the argument that Federal couits have
no risht to interfere in rate wars. Tho
Judge is CT the Clin:On tllat they have.
THE DECISION.
the full text Of the decision is as fol-
lows:
This IS q bill by two trust companies
OF Baltimore claiming; as owners OF
about $4,000 CT bonds CT the different
roads composing the ScuDcard Air Line
system toI which about SIG 900 were
bonds 0f the ScaOoard road proper ana
over $2,6J0, 900 Of bonds OF The different
roads coil2poSila; ne Atlantic Coast
Line anu the Southern Railway system,
There IS no aileSa ton rs to the proper
ticn In which the Two corr p!ainarts own
these bords. Tie bill makes defendants;
Tie Scabuard and Roanoke Railroad
company tunl no other road CT It's ay;-
tC!?) ana various other roads connec;rd
VITA the Atlantic Coast Zine and S0ulh.
crn railway system. 1t ALLEGES with
some amplincation rIat 4 rate war Ia;
arisen between the Seabcard system ANA
the Southern system, that the result Is
ruin0us to their bonds secured on tbcs:.
different roaas, and it prays the Court
tn stop 1t. TO this bill Il demurrer. was
iiieu by the ScaDoard. Some of the
other defendants entered IL general ap-
When tho bill was filed a temporary re-
Straining order was issued.
REVIEWS ARGUMENT.
On March 10 the case came W Far
hearing on bill and demurrer On that
day Il bill. called by the compiainantS 4
bill. was fled ailegin,: 4
demand on the Mercantile Trust com
pany. or Baltimore, trustee Of the Sea.
board bonds, aud its refusal to bring suit
on the grounds stated in the original
bill, but not making it a party defend
ant. One OF the cOmplainuntS, also, by
leave Of the Court, interviewed as tru:,-
lee IN some OF the mortgages, ana the
same leave was granted TO the Central
Trust company ond the Farmers Loan
and Trust company, Intervening as trus-
tees OF many millions Of dollars in bonds
nome CT them being Scaboarti bonds.
locmurrers were promptly fled to these
new papers, and an oylar MAS entered
setting all these dcmurrcy,S down FOR ar
sumcnt the next day, anu the case was
deliberately argued unon The grounds
raised by these dcmurrars
AS far as the SeabuarG system is con
cerned, the object Of the bill is to enioin
IT from reducing rates on the admitted
theory that through it the injunction
Will operate over the entire system 20
Atianta. tt appears that the Italcigh
u CASTOR railroad is, with the Sea board
lessee CT the Georgia. Carolina and Nor
1hern. Neither the Raleigh & CASTOR
nor the Georgia. Carolina and Northern
are parties, and yet am asked to cnjnin
rates over them on the mere allegation
that the Seaboard, by virtue Of owninn
Il majority OF the Raleigh & CASTOR
stock controls them. Mere ownership
OF stock is in no legal sense Il control.
ana it IS elementary law in the Federal
Courts that there is no jurisdiction 10
enter decree directly aflecting the
rights Of absent parties. In such case
the Court has no alternative but 10 dis
miss the bill.
ESSENTIAL PARTIES.
1t Is equally clear that the trustee in
The mortgage securing the Seaboard ana
Roanoke bonds is a necessary party. IN
The Federal Courts where any two bond
holders ranged on different sides might
defeat the jurisdiction, the doctrine that
the trustee represents them all is too
vital to be frittcrcd away And a mere
allegation OF demand and refusal is MOI
sufficient for any adjudication would
not bind him, and the defendant Nigh,
be VeSed with second suit in his name
And besides, he is entitled to ~ day in
court 10 show why he refused and TO
take charge OF the litigation at any sub
sequent stage If he sees fit.
MULTIFAEIOuS BILL.
mink. also, that the original bill Is
multlfarous as combining disconnected
causes OF action against different de-
1endants. and that this vice is flaerant-
~ aggravated by the additional interycn
lion and amendments,
For these reasons will enter. q decree
sustaining all the demurrers and dis
missing the bills and petitions.
must confess an inclination TO the
opinion that on proper bill, with prop.
or parties. a court may put q stop To =
ruinous rate war. but as this case goes