Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-28

|
given to the prior adjudication than II
| other, cases. rs Fed. Rep. p. 500. There
are indeed cases where each court mus
exercise it's independent jurisdiction
render its independent decree; but Il
should be a strong case which would
Justify a court of the United States II
granting an injunction affecting great
| interest even when given sufficiently t.
understand that another such cour
with concurrent jurisdiction upon
plenary bill has full charge of the same
controversy between the same partie.
/ or their privies, or has refused such ar
| injunction.
Let US see IL this Is a case of thu,
strong and controlling character. There
are several grounds upon which com.
plainants insist that they are entitled
| to relief
WHAT is REQUIRED.
The first is that 1t requires the unan-
imous consent of the stockholders of
the Georgia and Alabama railway be-
tore the complainants can be permitted
10 consolidate or merge that company
with the Seaboard Air Line or the
fIorida Central and Peninsular. In
support OF this proposition they cite
lne case OF Alexander VS.. the Atlantic
ana west Point Railway Company. de-
cldeo by the Supreme Court of the
State Of Georgia and reported in fhe
SO s. g.. Rep. S66. There the defendant
company was enjoined from building n
neit line railroad when 1t had no au-
thority In dts charter to do so
The court held in that case
that Proper corporate action was no.
thing less than the unanimous consent
OF every stakeholder there" However
the defendant company was not char
tered under the general railroad law OF
the State. and the court I'm that case
held that IL the road had been under
that general law the company could In
definitely extend it's railroad, build
Dranch roads from any points on lis
line, consolidate with any other rail-
road company, or lease the property
tnereot. II not competing line. build
and operate steamboats,, etc.
In the case of Freeman VS.. Howe %
Howard $50. the Supreme Court of the
United States remarked: "a court first
obtaining jurisdiction of a cause has a
right to decide every issue arising in
the progress of the cause" In COM
inentlng upon and somewhat modifying
TINS statement the court remarks. in
BUCK VS.. Goliath, 3 Wallace 3l5: "It Is
scarcely necessary to observe that the
rule announced is one which has been
often held by this and other courts and
which is essential to the correct nd
minlstration OF Justice in all countries
where there is more than one court
having Jurisdiction of the same mat
ters. At the same time 1t is TO be re-
marked that 1t is confined in its opera
lion 10 the parties before the court, or
VINO may, II they wish to do SO, come
before the court and have hearing on
the issues SO to be decided"
THE CASE OF RYAN.
NOW, in the case of Thomas f. Ryan,
complainant against John Shelton VIII
liams and others, decided by Judge
wallace, above referred to, injunction
there sought. among other things, to
prevent the consolidation OF the Sea-
board Air Line system containing some
ono thousand miles of road. the Geor-'
gia and Alabama railway four hundred
and fifty miles, and the Florida Central
and Pendnsular railway some nine hun
dred and seventy-eight miles, aggregat-
ing some two thousand, four hundred
and thirty-five miles"
The principal defendants in that case,
as In this case. were John Shelton Will
liams and ]. w. Middendorf The plain
tihs, Dady & Rider, in the case here,
were privies with the plaintiff there,
and ought, to have joined in that suit.
There are many cases from courts of
high authority supporting this view. In
Craig VS.. Hoge, 95 Va, 275, % S. e.
Rep. TIL, 1t has been held that a court
will refuse to proceed in a case after
learning OF the existence of n suit pre-
viously commenced in another court of
concurrent jurisdiction. involving the
same subject matter during the penden-
cy of such prior suit.
And in Troy Fertilizer Company VS..
Presswood, 116 Ala. 119, 90 so. 262. the
court declared "the fact that the Chan
Gerry Court of one county has acquired
jurisdiction of the matter in controver-
sly between the same parties will pre-
vent maintenance of a subseUUent
suit in the Chancery Court OF another
county"
THE PRECISE QUESTION.
Almost the precise question now be-
fore the court has been decided in ac-
oordance with this view: "a decree on
bill by n stakeholder for the benefit
OF himself and all other stockholders
who come in to enjoin the consumma-
ton of an agreement OF the corporation
Is conclusive in a subsequent suit by
another stockholders for the same pur-
pose and involving the same question
In the absence of fraud or collisions
600 New Jersey Equity. 656, American
reports A, 6. Metcalf lac. 60 VT, 1, F.
r. OF. 1913. Ill, 1929
In the case of the Southern Pacific
railroad VS.. United States, 16S, U. s.,
page 4S, a general principle strongly il
Illustrating this view is stated as fol-
lows: The general principle announo-
ed in numerous cases is that a right
question or fact distinctly put in issue
and directly determined by a court OF
competent Jurisdiction as a ground OF
recovery. cannot be disputed in a sub
sequent suit between the same parties
or their privies; and even If the sec