Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-28
THE SEABOARD AIR
LINE WINS AGAIN
Continued from Page


shall have no power to authorize any
corporation to buy shares of stock in
any other corporation in this State or
I elsewhere, or to make any contract or
agreement whatever with any such cor
pora'tion which may have the effect. or
ID intepded to have the effect, to de-
ieat or lessen competition in their re-
specuVe businesses, or to encourage
monopoly; and all such Contracts and
agreements shall be illegal and void"
ana that the scheme of the defen-
oants cannot be carried out for the con-
'soiidation or merger Of these companies
Withont the unanimous vote Of the
stockholders OF the Georgia and Ala
bama railway.
PROCEEDINGS ELSEWHERE.
1t has appeared sufficiently in this
nearing that the substantial objections
10 the proposed consolidation have been
presented In two other proceedings In
equity, one In the Circuit Court of the
United States for the Eastern district
or Virginia and another in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the East
ern district of North Carolina. In both
OF these cases an effort was made to
OBTAIN an injunction against the pro-
posed merger and consolidation by diff
ferent stockholders, it Is true. and
against corporations constituting n part
or the Seaboard Air Line which are
not made defendants in this case. but
while the records in those cases have
not been produced in the entirety.
enough has been brought before the
court Mt the instance OF the complain
ant to show that at least in the United
States Circuit Court for the Eastern
district of Virginia there is now pend
ing holly contested litigation between
a party or parties having an equal in
terest and making n common cause
with the complainants here against the
substantial defendants to this bill. and
that the decision of the controversy
pending there would quite effectually
conclude the controversy submitted
here.
SUITS NIGHT CLASH.
In other words. 1t is sufficiently ap-
parent to the court that the complain
ant and those acting with him have
presented these bills In several juris-
dctlons along the line of the respond
cnts' system. thus seeking to take the
chances of possible difference of ju-
dcial opinion in each territorial divi-
sion where the powers, OF a United
States Circuit Court have been In
volied. 1t Is even more distinctly APP
parent. understanding the fact that
the complainants counsel have sub
ihibttt OUly IL IOfllOu OIL Cnc record OIL
the clause now pending in the Circuit
Court for the Eastern District OF Vir-
GINA; that the rights OF all parties
could we'll he determined in that juris-
diction, and effective and conclusive de-
cree there rendered. which would final
ly determine the controversy without
subjecting the defendants to harrass-
ing and veXatious litigation in other ju-
risdictions and without contesting in
oil rrty ne nrt J,t-f c1f
ton controversy which a proper re-
gard for the dignity and authority Of
the United States courts would demand
should be contested and disposed of in
the first circuit having sufficient juris-
duction; ignore the salutary principle;
bring about n conflict Of au-
thority pass conflicting order
and render conflicting decisions.
and in the same controversy
producing endless confusion. and
distrust in the administration of
the law, and often rewarding parties
who are stubbornly litigious, who are
endowed with greater resources for
litigation. and who infrequently seek
TO use the courts as pawns in the game
they play on the gigantic chess board.
marked by the transportation lines of
the country.
COURTS AS PAWNS.
An easy illustration OF the Injurious
consequences may be drawn from tho
case at bar. The Circuit Court OF the
Eastern District of Virginia, it seems,
has refused an injunction on the sub
stantial issues presented to the court
here Let US suppose that we should
grant the injunction which that learned
court refused. The decision there, If
appealable might go on appeal to the
Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fourth
Circuit, the decision here to the Circuit
Court Of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit
Thus the conflict Of authority with all
the Injurious consequences to investors
md to the public might continue on
indefinitely.
RULE DEMANDED.
This general rule is demanded by the
very object for which civil courts have
been established, which is to secure tho
peace and repose of society by the set
Element of matters capable Of judicial
determination.
Its enforcement is essential to the
maintenance of social order. for the aid
of judicial tribunals would not be in
voked for the vindication of rights Of
persons and property, If, as between
the parties and their privies. con-
clusiveness did not attend the judgment
of such tribunals in respect of all mat
ters properly put in issue and actually
determined by them. 1t is true that
this authority relates exclusively to
final judgments. but IL the final judg-
I:1ent of the Virginia Court as between
Mr.. Ryan, who, as q stockhoider, is
privy with the complainants here would
conclusively settle the disputed rights
of the parties, 1t seems clear that this
court should give to that court first
taking jurisdiction the opportunity to
decide Its 1t has been said that the
rule which obtains among the Circuit