Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1900-12-24
Detroit Streetcar System Involved
in the Suit,
PARTNERSHIP is AN ISSUE.
Amount Involved Goes into the
Millions - Points I'm the
Dispute.

New York, Dec. 26.-Decislon was re-
served By Justice Blanchard, in the su-
preme court today in an action brought
by Tom l.. Johnson. against r. II. VIII
son & Co., bankers and brokers, for an
Injunction restraining the defendants
from disposlng OF the stocks and securi-
ties Of the Detroit Street Railway sys-
tenn pending the trial Of a suit for the
dissolution Of an alleged partnership ex-
listing between Johnson and II, T. VIII
son Il Co. Mr. Johnson also asks that
u receiver be appointed for the railway.
Inc origin Of the suit was the pur-
chase IN 1894 by the defendants of the
Detroit Street Railway system. after
which Mr. Johnson became associated
with them In It's management.
h. I, Wilson & Co began the pur-
chase OF the concern I'm the fall OF 1894.
and after they had succeeded In so do
ing, they brought in Mr.. johnson as an
associate in January. 1895 He was TO
have a one-ffth interest in the company
Of all stocks purchased or 10 be pur-
chased by r. T. Wilson & Co., in con-
necion with the carrying out OF tho
project for the consolidation OF all the
surface railroads I'm and about Detroit.
MI Johnson was also to have charge Of
the working Of the company at salary
OF $4,000 a year r. r. Wilson q co.
were 20 have the management OF the
finances u the corporation and were TO
form such syndicates and outside ar
rangements with regard TO the securl-
ties as they deemed IT. The contract
between Johnson and r. I. Wilson e
co. was TO terminate within three years
If possible, but did not so terminate,
and was extended from time to time
until November last The reason OF the
failure 10 close the agreement was the
formation Of new company for the
requirement OF the Detroit Street Rail-
way system which was known as the
three-cent fare combination. which was
engineered by the firm of Pack & Ever
it, who secured franchise on making
stipulation that they would carry
passengers for a Scent fare. and who
succeeded I'm acquiring between nifty
and sixty miles Of streets under that
franchise.
The scheme Of Pack & Everett serl-
ously lnterfered with the plans laid
down by r. r. Wilson & CO.. and they
made a settlement with Pack & Everiti
In 1895 whereby Pack & EYeritt agreed
20 deposit seventy per cent worth Of
stock In the three-cent fare company
and were 10 receive In return certain
stocks In a new company TO be organ
lied under the laws ~ Michigan Pack
q EVeritt however. did not deposit the
run amount OF seventy per cent OF the
stock In the three-cent fare company,
and the question OF a balance was made
a basis Of negotiations as was also the
r. r. Wilson G. Co.. should pay
for the stock already deposited. These
negotiations continued until the mid
die Of November last and on Noyem-
Der Path an arrangement was made be-
tween r. Y. Wilson & Co., and Pack e
Everitt. Mr. Johnson claims that he,
on November 18th, orally gave notice
that he wanted his share OF the securl-
ties and that he would pay his one-hfth
share ~ the outlay by Wilson & Co.. In
their purchase. the amount expended
being over 100000.
H. T. Wilson & Co. deny that John
son gave any notice that he desired a
dissolution Of the alleged partnership
prior 20 the making OF the Pack & Ever
TT agreement. They admit that, I'm the
beginning Of December he did give
written notice demanding that the part
nership be dissolved
Wilson & CO., paid s5,OOO,0OO for the
purchase Of the roads acquired by them.
but say that Johnson has not yet paid
his one-nfth Of that sum and cannot
therefore claim one-flfth OF the securi-
ties. Johnson's reply 10 this IL that he
offered TO pay II and was ready TO do so
at any time, and that he is therefore,
entitled to receive the one-ffth Of the
stock contemplated in his agreement Of
1895. The injunction asked for by him
calls for the restraining Of the carrying
out OF the Pack & Evertt agreement
settled on by r, T. Wilson & Co., as
well as debarring the transfer OF the Sc
,urities held by the defendants.
Justice Blanchard viii not render his
decision until he has received briefs
from counsel on both sides on the law Of
he case.