The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-03-12
q0BACCOTRUSP VICTORY
Effort to Establish Monopoly
Does Not Justify Annulmert
Of a Corporation.
Special to the Jersey citu Nesus.

TRENTON, March u, 1S97-Vice Chan
cellor Reed has dismissed the bill in the
case against the American Tobacco
Company and the Trust is victorious In
the fight to destroy it.
In the language of the Vice Chancellor
the action was brought ito restrain the
defendants from transacting their busi-
ness and from conducting it in a manner
prejudicial to the complainants ana in
furious to the people of the State of New
jersey
The bill was filed by Attorney General
Stockton, in the relation of John 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 the admiral,
cigarette. manufactured by rival cor
poration.
Among other things, the bill filed set out
that for many year prior to January q,
1880, the manufacturers composing the
American Tobacco Company transacted
business Independently of each other The
Trust was formed some months previous
ly, being composed of William E. KIM
ball and James T. Hart, under the firm
name of w. S. Kimball & Co., of Roch-
ester; Charles G. Emery, under the firm
name of Goodwin & Co., of the State of
New York; Allen A. Ginter of Virginia
W.. Duke & Sons Company, of North
Carolina, and the Kinney Tobacco Com
pany of New York.
The capital stock was s25, 900, and
they have been selling 95 per cent. of all
the cigarettes sold in the country The
complainants allege thar coon after they
began dealing in "Admiral'' cigarettes
they received communication from the
pressed their displeasure. This was fol-
lowed by a refusal of the American To-
bacco 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 a right when legally
formed to deal the same as individuals.
The points raised by the compliments
and Vice Chancellor Reeds full views
bus, which ne has attached to the de-
cision:-
l. A Court of Equity does mot possess
the power to restrain a corporation or
gantzed under forms of law from perform
ing acts w3thiln hts corporate power, mere
ly because some of the steps taken in or
gambling the company may have been &
regular, or because the purpose of ttlhe in
corporators may have been to establish
monopoly
O. Under these conditions quo warranto
IS the appropriate procedure 10 challenge
the right of a corporation to exercise its
franchises.
g. trading or manufacturing corpora
tion, until its charter is ann,llled by such
q proceeding at law, has the same aihthor-
ity as an individual trader or nlanufac-
turer to sell or consign its goods, ito select
its selling agents and to impose condi-
tions as ITO whom they shall SELL to and THE
terms upon which they shall sell.
4. A decree restraining the officers and
agents of a corporation from executing
corporate acts is the same as q decnee
enjoinfng the corporation itself
R. v ,Lindabury of Elizabeth ane
| Joseph Choate of New York conducted
| the case for the American Tobacco Com.
-pany.