The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-11-18
TIMES CASE ARGUED.
Defendants Counsel Argues That
Injunction Is Not the Proper
Method Of Relief.
Attorneys for Mr.. Jones Insists That
a Specific Contract Be Car
:@>sr.. ried Out. .

Arguments were submitted before Judge
Cray this morning upon which may hinge
the future ownership Of the Minneapolis
Times. the sale of which to H.. v. Jones
was announced a few days ago. The
matter came up this morning under a mo-
ton for a restraining order against the
Times company to prevent them from en-
tering upon the books any transfer or the
Haskell and Palmer stock which may be
made prior to a final decision In an action
now pending in which Mr.. Jones seeks to
compel the specific performance of the
Haskell Palmer contract Messrs Cohen
and Atwater represented the Jones IN
terests, while M. D. Purdy appeared Tor
the Times company. Saturday Judge
Brooks signed an order granting a tempo
rary injunction and this order still STANDS
Judge Cray announcing, at the compile
ton Of arguments this morning, that ne
would reserve his decision until 10, clock
tomorrow. =,
When the case was taken up, J. B. At
water addressed the court. This &C.
ton" said he,. "is for the specific per-
Torrance of q contract made between II.
" Jones, w. E. Haskell and Charles NJ.
Palmer for the sale of 5000 shares OF the
Times Newspaper company. MT. Az
water then explained what had already
been done in the case and asked the
court to continue the restraining order
signed by Judge Brooks.
Mr.. Purdy, in presenting his argument
against such continuance, said ne ap-
peared specially for the company, as
services of the order had been secured
only upon the company and not upon
either Mr.. Haskell or Mr. Palmer, both
Of whom he declared to be citizens OF
New York and outside the jurisdiction Of
the court. He objected to the, continuance
of the order on the ground that the CO.
defendants who were really the principals
in the case, had not been served, and
| were not in court, nor within the court 8
jurisdiction.
'They are the real parties defendant
here" said he. LAS I understand 1t, the
object Of this motion Is to seek to re-
| strain the company from entering trans
fer of stock upon it's books. which may,
for all we know, have already been made
and which certainly can be made legally
any time within the next few weeks. A
sale of that stock made in New York to-
day would be efrectual and binding. There
is no order Of court restraining Messrs.
Haskell and Palmer from making such a
sale.. A purchaser might come to the
company, exhibit a certificate of this stock
and demand that it be transferred on the
company's books He would have the
right and could mandamus us if we re-
| fused.
Last Saturday a tender of SIS, 900 was
made to the local agents Of Mr.. Haskell
and Mr.. Palmer and the money was re-
| fused. The plaintiff here has an adequate
remedy against them; but none against
The Times company. This action should
| have been brought for breach of contract,
not for the performance of a contract.
The plaintiff has come into the wrong
court in order to get jurisdiction
Emanuel Cohen, IN reply, said that the
gist Of Mr.. Purdy's argument seemed to
| ha fhof he Iolo {,,t3A -
provided he could secure service upon
Mr.. Haskell and Mr.. Palmer but not
otherwise. II understand there is no at
tack upon our complaint" he said. Mr.
Purdy assented to this, and Mr. Coher
continued. Suppose they sell that stock
to a dummy and the dummy comes here
and secures a transfer which he could
do If the company was not enjoined, anc
then goes to Ceylon. We are entitled tt
relief but by the time this case can be
decided it will be too late. Like ole
Mother Hubbard we would go to the cup.
board only to find it bare. The stoci
would have disappeared. ..-...
"Who can be harmed If, this motion i:
granted? Mr.. Purdy says there may b,
an innocent purchaser. He is the onl,
one who can be harmed. =: The man wht
buys this stock knowing Of this actio1
can't be harmed. If a transfer sof thi
stock should, by any possibility; be mad
to a bona f1de purchaser then he could Sc
cure an order of court here-come /,
and make himself g. party to this suit, Il
that case admit we would have no relic
as against him; but he is the only maj
who could be even inconvenienced by tn
Issuance of this order. 49,
We are now the bona f1de purchase
of this stock. We stand r in his shoes
Our rights are now before this court, no
: those of some suppositious Individual VIII
may or may not not have an existence
Mr.. Atwater suggested, on the uuestio
, OF Jurisdiction. that the property involve
In dispute was not the certificate of stoc
owned in New York, but the stock itself
, in Minneapolis.
' At the close of arguments Judge era
announced that he wanted to look up
! similar case In this state, but added tina
his mind was already pretty well mad
+ up in the matter. He finally said h
would give his decision at 10 o'clock to
morrow morning: r. ~. 49,. -. -,