The age-herald., 1902-01-01
Decision Against Northern Pa cflc is Set Aside in th3
 United States CGari
CASE WILL BE APPEALED
 10 J, s. SUPREME COURT
Legal Fight of the Great Trunk Rail- rbads for Consolidation Ei,ts Be- gun in Earnest-Gove-nors
 Take a Hand

s
 Minneapolis, December 31.--Jufge Will liam Lochren of the United States Cir cult Court. today dissolved the tempor- arH injunction issued in the case of Peter Power against the Northern Pocific Rail- road Company by Judge Elliott of the district of Hennepin County, Monday. Mir. Powers attorneys say the case will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the fight has Just begun.
 The injunction restrained the Northern Pacific from issuing any evidences of in tiebtedness to retire the preferred stock of the company or to retire the preferred stock in any other manner thsn by the use of the surplus net earnings of the road.
 It also restrained the Northern Pacific and it's officers from entering into any agreement or doing any act by which the road would be consolidated or merged through the medium of the Northern Se- curities Company with the Great North ern or the burlington.
 After the decision was made orally by Judge Lochren at the close of day s argument by the attorneys for both sides. an effort was made by the plaintiffs at torneys to have the court fix the amount of bond which would be required lh order to appeal from the decision and to stay all further proceedings in the lower court pending appeal.
 Reduced Supersedeas Bond.
 Judge Lochren refused to allow su- persedeas bond in any amount to be given. Judge W. A. Lancaster. represent ing Mir. Powers, the plaintiff, asked the court:
 "Does your honor mean to say that the damage which would resul, to the North ern Pacific Railway Company, if an ap- peal from your order dissolving the tenn porary injunction were taken and a su- persedeas bond staying proceedings were filed would be so great that bond could not be given large enough to reimburse the defendant"
 "As the question of granting super sedeas," the judge replied, 'is discre- tionary with the court, I decline to per init the staying of the proceedings oI the force of the order by a supersedas bond on appeal"
 No Evidence of Merger.
 Judge Lochren held that the Northern Pacific was acting within the authority of its charter, of the contract entered into between 1t and it's stockholders as incorporated in the certificates of pre- ferred stock and of the agreement entered into November IS in attempting to retire the s75, 100000 of preferred stock in t.le manner allegeder by MT. Powers.
 He also held that railroad corpora tions could not do indirectly what the law prevented them from doing directly and that any method by which consoli- dation of two or more competing and parallel lines would be brought about would be illegal and a writ of injunc- ton would probably restrain the consum- nation of the plan. But there was noth- ing in the case as now presented to him that would indicate the stockholders of the Northern Pacific railroad company were attempting such a consolidation or merger.
 The case was transferred late Monday night by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company from the state to the federal court and an order to show cause, re- turnable this morning why the temporary injunction granted by Judge Elliott should Lochren and served late last night upon MT. Powers attorneys. The answer of the defendant was filed in the district court and an order removing the case to the federal court was secured from Judge Brooks of the Hennepin district court.
 Settle Legality of Merger.
 Judge Lochren, in his decision made a ruling which the attorneys of J. J. Hill claim settles the question of the legality
 
 of the proposed merger. Said the court in part
 If the Northern Pacific Railroad Com pany never thought of consolidation, but to pay off the preferred stockholders and issue common stock, it had authority to do that, and that of itself would certainly have no tendency towards consolidation. If tha aana neraons own all or substan- tially all of the stock of both companies. I do not see the necessity of forming the Northern Securities Company simply for the purpose of carrying that purpose out. They might do it just as we'll without 1t. It seems to me that the preferred stock may all be retired without the Northern Securities Company being formed If t