The age-herald., 1902-02-25
LOSES
 MERCER CASE Supreme Court Holds Both Sides
 Must be Represented IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION
Justice shiras Says When a State Like Minnesota Becomes a Voluntary Complainant 1t Cannot Rep
 resent Both Sides.

Washington, February 2.-The United States Supreme Court today delivered it's opinion in the case of Minnesota vs. the Northern Securities Company in applica- tion of the state to file a billl of com plaint in that court The opinion was read by Justice Shiras and the motion for leave to file the bill was denied on the count that the court is without jurisdic- tion.
 This is the case in which the state of Minnesota made an effort to secure the intervention of the Supreme Court to prevent the merging of the Northern Pa cific and Great Northern Railroad Com panies by injunction. Justice Shiras sum med up the judgment of the court as fol- lows
 "As the Great Northern and Northern Pacific Railroad Companies are indispen- sible parties without whose presence the court, acting as a court of equity, can not proceed and as our constitutional jurisdiction would not extend to the case if those companies were made parties defendant, the motion for leave to file the proposed bill must be and is denied
 Justice Shiras' Decision.
 
 Justice shiras said the case presented is that the State of Minnesota is apprehen- sive that a majority of the stockholders respectively of the Great Northern and Northern Pacific railroad companies have combined and have made an arrangement through the organization of the corpora ton of the state of New Jersey whereby such consolidation or what is alleged to amount to the same thing, shall be effect ed as will operate to defeat and overrule the policy of the state in prohibiting the consolidation of parallel and competing lines of railroad and therefore had applied to a court of equity to prevent by injunc- tion the operation and effect of such combination and arrangement. He then stated that the question to be determin- ed was whether the parties to the case were before thL court and he held that it was obvious that the minority stock holders of the two railroad com panies are not represented in the controversy by the companies whose stock they hold and their representatives ought not be affected without a hearing even if it were conceded that majority of the stock in such com panies held by few persons had resulted in forming some sort of an illegal ar rangement. Moreover it must not be over looked that it is not the private intention of stockholders that are to be alone con sidered.
 Cannot Represent Both Sides. The opinion then continued: Even a state becoming a voluntary complainant in court of equity can not claim to represent both sides of the controversy Not only have the stockholders, be they few or many, right to be heard through the officers and directors whom they have legally selected to represent them, but the general interests of the public which might be deeply affected by the decree of the court are still entitled to be heard and that when the state or complainant and in a case like the present, can only be affected by the presence of railroad companies as parties defendant
 When it appears to a court of equity that case. otherwise presenting ground for the action can not be dealt with be- cause of the absence of essential parties it is useful for the court, while sustain ing the objection, to grant leave to the complainant to amend by bringing in such parties. But when it likewise ap- pears that necessary and indispensable parties are beyond the reach of the jur- isdiction of the court or that when made parties the Jurisdiction of the court will thereby be defeated, for the court to grant leave to amend would be useless