The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1900-01-16
THE INJUNCTION REFUSED
ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS
WAS NOT WARRANTED.
CONSOLIDATION OF SEABOARD SYSTEMS
The Hearing in the Seaboard and Roanoke Case
at Norfolk Yesterday. John Shelton Will
Iiams Gives Out an Interview as 10
the F. c, &P, and G, & A.


Norfolk. Va, Jan. 15.-United States
District Judge Waddill this afternoon re-
fused the injunction prayed for by Thos.
| +. Ryan, of New York, against the con-
| sOlidation of the Seaboard Air Line sys-
tenn, the Florida Central and Peninsular
and the Georgia and Alabama Railways.
Upon the request of counsel for com
plainant and argument by counsel for
defendant, Thursday next was set as the
day for the issuing of the formal order.
The decision, covering more than $500
words reviewed the case elaborately stat
ing at length the contentious of COM
plainant and defendant-first, as to con-
solidation: second, as to the sale of o.
422 shares of stock of the Raleigh and
Castor Railroad Company owned by the
,Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad Compa-
NY After balancing the contentious Of
either side on the points above mentioned
Judge Waddell continued:
1T may be conceded that a minority
stakeholder has the right to seek the
intervention of a court of equity against
the acts OF a majority when such are
ultra wires, fraudulent and illegel. The
measure of relief afforded will, of course,
depend upon the fects.
IIawes W. Oaklad G4 Us. 80.
Shaw VS.. Davis, ct al, IS Md. Jos
316.
Whether or not an injunction should
be awarded is q matter addressed to the
sound discretion of the court and in its
exercise all of the circumstances must
he taken into consideration. not only the
damage that may arise to tbe complainant
by reason Of its refusal but the damage
likely TO result to the defendants from
its issuance. Ia there is Il greater iikeh-
hood of damage from the latter than the
former the injunction should be as a rule
refused. Fosters Fed. Prac., sec. 2333
and cases cited.)
Then summing up the conclusions from
the observations already made, his hon
or said
Upon the whole case my conclusion
is that the circumstances do not justify
granting the injunction asked that the
rCbability of irreparable damage to the
complainant from failure to award the
injunction is at least no greater han the
injury likely to result to the defendants
should it be awarded. if indeed 50 great.
To the present time the complainant does
not appear to have been seriously dam
AGED and | doubt not but with this SUIT,
cCmDrehensive as it is, with ali the par
ties before the court, charged " Ii no.
tice of this claim. serious in cha "actcr anG
effecting all of the property and estate
of the Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad
C0mpany and at least all of the parties
to this cause dealing with said proper
ty and his rights can and VIII be fully
protected.
The rights of other persons inte, 81
ed i'm the litigation should no. be over
locked. and especially is this trJe i'll a
case in which a minority stockhoder III
insisting upon course to secure MS
rights believed by practically all of his
co-stockohlders to be inlmical TO ana ut
terly destructive of theirs. The com
plainants stock. according to the present
market value, is worth 5000 per share
| (the par value being S100,) that IS S49l'-
| 200 whereas that of the otf"' stock
| holders who oppose what complainant
| wishes is worth some S2,2Sj,6G0 This
refers of course only to holdings IN the
| Seaboard and Koanoke Railroad Com
! pany When the interests Of those that
may be seriously affected by the iniunc-
| ton in the other roads of the Seahoari
| Air Lime system. of the Georgia and
Alabama Railroad Company and the Flor
| ida Central and Peninsular Railraod
| Company, proposed to he cons ,lldated
with. are taken into account, the amount
| reaches TO many millions of dollars.
| The other stockholders in the Seaboard
and Roanoke Railroad Company
| who believe that 5000 IS an
excellent price, have the right TO expect
| the court to cautiously exercise the dis'
| cretion asked in an effert to protect a
| stakeholder owning less than one fifth III
| amount of the conpany's stock when by
so doing theirs may be seriously affected
The preliminary injunction prayed fol-
| will be refused