The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-13
AMERICAN TOBACCO COMPANY
A Bill TO AnnuI Its Charter Dismissed
by Yice-ChanCelIOr Reed.
RIGHT TO CONDUCT ITS OWN AFFAIRS
To Sell to whom It Chooses and ON the
Terms II May Elect, Upheid-fquity
Court Has No Jurisdiction.
The syllabus.

TRENTON, n. j., March Fin the
suit brought to annul the charter OF tho
American Tobacco Company. vlce-Chan-
cellor Reed, this morning flied an opin-
ion dismissing the bill and ending the
present litigation against the company.
In the language Of the Vice-Chancellor
the action was brought TO restrain tho
defendants from transacting their busi-
ness and from conducting Il in a manner
prejudicial TO the complaints and inJu-
rious TO the people OF the state Of New
Jersey The bill was filed by Attorney
General stockton on petition Of John r..
Frank W. Miller, jobbers in paper
cigarettes. with whom the American To-
bacco Company refused TO deal accord
ing to the allegation OF the Mllers. be-
cause they persisted in also handling
cigarettes manufactured by rival COR
poration.
THE BILL.
Among other things the bill fled set out
that for many years prior TO January
q. N~, the manufacturers composing tho
American Tobacco Company transacted
business Independently OF each other.
The combination was then formed be-
ing composed OF william $. Kimball and
James n. Hart. under the Arm name OF
w. ). kimball q Co. of Rochester. Chas.
g. Emery, undor the firm name Of Good
win n Co, Of New York; Allen & Gin
ter, OF Virginia; w. Duke x Sons Com
pany. Of North Carolina; and the Kinney
Tobacco Company. OF New York Tne
capital stock was S25 100 .000 and they
have been selling ninety-nye per cent OF
all the cigarettes sold i'm the country.
al l.t
ter they began dealing IN Admiral ciga-
rettes they received a communication from
the American Tobacco Company which
expressed their displeasurc. This was
followed by q refusal Of the American
Tobacco Company TO sell them more
goods.
Nice-Chancellor Reed holds tina. tie
Equity Court has no iurisdiction that
the proceedings should have been
brought in the nature OF quo warranto.
and that corporations have right, when
legally formed. 10 deal the slime as in
divduals. The points raised by the
complainants and Nice-C Chancellor Reels
fun views may be Inferred from the fol-
lowing syllabus which he was attached 70
THE SYALLABUs.
tho decision:
l. A court Of equity does not possess
lied under forms Of law from perform
ing acts within the corporate power,
merely because some OF the steps taken
in organizing the company may have been
irregular or because the purpose OF the
incorporators may have been 10 establish
a monopoly.
. Under these conditions quo warranto
IS the proper preceding 10 challenge the
right OF corporation TO exercise It's
franchises.
3. trading or manufacturing corpor-
alton. until its charter is annullod by
such a proceeding ar law has the same
authority as an individual trader or man
ufacturer TO sell or consign It's goods. 70
select its selling agents and to impose
conditions as 10 whom they shall sell and
tho terms upon which they shall sell.
l. decree restraining the officers and
agents Of a corporation from executing
corporate acts. is the same as decree
onioining the corporation itself
r. Y. Linabury. OF Elizabeth and Jo-
seph Choate, OF New York, conducted tho
case for the American Tobacco Company.