Birmingham state herald. (Birmingham, Ala.) 1895-1897, 1897-03-13
THE SUIT IS ANNULLED.
Against the American Tobacco
Company Known as = Il
THE TOBA1 20 TRUST BILL
The Court HOY 81 Has Not the Power to Re-
strain CT 5sations Because of Some
SiIarity in Organizing.

Trenton;tN. J., March 12.-In the suit
brought to annul the charter of the
American Tobacco company and break
up what is known as the Tobacco trust,
Vice Chancellor Reed this morning filed
an opinion dismissing the bill and ending
the present litigation against The COM
pany. In the language of the vice chan
cellor, the action was brought ito re-
strain the defendants from transac.ing
their business and from conducting IT in
a manner prejudicial to the complninants
and injurious to the people of the state
of New Jersey"
The bill was filed by Attorney-General
Stockton on the petition of j. R. and
Frank w. Miller, jobbers in paper cigar
cites, with whom the American Tobacco
company refused to DEAL according to the
allegation of the Millers, because they
persisted in also handling Admiral
cigarettes manufa ctured by a rival cor
poration. Among other things, the bill
filed set out that for many years prior to
January Il, 1890, the manufacturers, COM
prising the American Tobacco company,
transacting their business independently
OF each other, the trust was then formed,
being composed of William s. Kimball
and james T. Hart, under the firm name
of W. s. Kimball g. Co., of Rochester;
Charles G. Emery, member of the firm
name of Goodwin & Co, of New York;
Allen & Ginter, of Virginia; w. Duke
Sons company, of North Carolina, and
the Kinney Tobacco company, of New
York.
The capital stock was $25,OOO,OO0. and
they have been selling 95 per cent of all
the cigarettes sold in the country
The complainants allege that soon
after they began dealing in Admiral
cigarettes they received a communica-
ton from the American Tobacco COM
pany which expressed their displeasure.
This was followed by refusal of the
American Tobacco company to sell them
more goods. Vice Chancellor Reed holds
that the equity court has no jurisdiction;
that the proceedings should have been
brought in the nature of quo warranto
and that corporations have right when
legally formed, to deal with the same as
individuals. The point raised by the
complainants and Vice Chancellor Reeds
full views may be inferred from the fol-
lowing syllabus, which he has attached
to the decision:
FirSt-A court of equity does not pos
sess the power to restrain q corporation
organized under the forms Of law from
performing acts within Its corporate
power, merely because some of the steps
taken in organizing the company may
have been irregular or because the pur-
pose of the Incorporation may have been
to -esta biish a monopoly.
S-cond--Under these econditionsquo war
ranto is the proper proceedings to chal-
1enge the right of the corpora tion to ex-
ercise its franchises.
Third-A trading or manufacturing
corporation, until its charter Is annulled
by such a proceeding of law. has the
same authority as an individual trader
or manufacturer to sell or consign it's
goods, to select it's selling agents and
impose conditions as to whom they shall
sell, and the terms upon which they shall
SELL
Fourth-A decree restraining the off,
GERS and agents of corporation from ex-
ceeding corporate acts Is the same as
the decree enjoining the corporation it.
self
r. v. Lindabury. of Elizabeth. and
Joseph Choate, of New York. conducted
the case for the American Tobacco COM
nanV