The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-04-20
HARTMAN and PIERCE
SUFFER DEFEAT IN CASE
AGAINST JAMES ]. HILL
Petition for Leave to Intervene Is
Denied by the United States
Circuit Court.
DECISION IS UNANIMOUS
Northern Securities Company May
Now Proceed to Distribute
Stock and Dissolve.

ST. PAUL, Mimi, April 19.-In the United
States Circuit Court this morning Judges
Sanborn, Thayer, vandevanter and Hook
unanimously denied the application of Har-
riman and Pierce and the oregon Short
line Railroad Company for leave to inter-
vene in the case of the United States
against the Northern Securities Company
on the following grounds:
"First-The plan of the directors of the
Northern Securities Company for the dis
tribution of the stock of the Great North
ern and Northern Pacific Railway COM
panies is not violative of the decree in the
Northern Securities case.
''Second-No one but the United States
can successfully appeal to the court 10
enjoin the execution of that plan on the
ground that it is in violation of the Sher-
man antitrust act, and the United States
expresses satisfaction with the present de-
cree.
"Third-The stock Of the two railway
companies is not in the custody of the
court.
''Fourth-An Intervention is not neces-
sary to enable the petitioners to protect
any pecuniary interest equity they
have"
Judge Thayer delivered the opinion of
the court. In discussing the reasons for the
decree, after reciting the grounds put
forth by Hartman and Pierce for leave
to intervene, the court says: Applications
for leave to intervene in a case after the
entry of final decree are very unusual:
They are never granted, as a matter OF
course, and, owing to the tendency of such
applications to occasion delay and prolong
the existing litigation, they ought not TO
be granted unless Ii is necessary to do so
n
otherwise protected or to avoid some COM
plication that is liable to arise.
THE principal ground, as 1t seems, on
which the petitioners, Hartman and
Pierce, base their application TO intervene
is that it is necessary to the due enforce
ment of the decree that they should be adj
lowed to raise further issues and obtain
further orders. 1t is undoubtedly true
that supplemental bill may be filed in a
case after the final decree for the purpose
of fully executing it, when, after the de-
cree is entered, some action has been taken
unforeseen events have occurred which
| Will prevent its enforcement unless some
| further orders or directions are given. But
| we fail to perceive that further orders are
| necessary in the case in hand to insure the
| due execution of the decee according to
| its terms. The decree was wholly prohibi-
tory. 1t enjoined the doing of certain
| threatened acts, and SO long as these acts
are not done 1t enforceS itself, and no fur
| Their action looking to it's enforcement is
deemed essential.
| when the decree was entered it was as
sumed by the court that when the stock
| was thus rendered valueleSS in the hands
| of the Securities Company the stockholders
| of that company would be able and likewise
| disposed to make some disposition OF the
| stock which, under all the circumstance:
| of the case, would be fair and just ano
| would restore it to the market for the
| world, where it would have some value in
| stead of being a worthless commodity. L
| was thought that the duty of thus dispos
| ing of Ii could be safely left to the stock
| holders of the Securities Company, and tina
| if any controversy arose in the discharg
| of this function, in view of the situation
| that had been created by the decree, /
form the subject matter of an Independent
| suit between the parties Immediately in
| terested.
1T was said in argument that one pur
| pose of the Intervention is TO have tina
clause of the decree which is now merel.
| permissive made mandatory. But thi
| would be to modify the provisions of de
| cree which has now become final by affirm
| ance and makes an order which we express
| ly and on full consideration declined t
| make when the decree was entered. Thi
| we must decline to do
| ''Our conclusion is that the petitioner
| should not be permitted to intervene an,
put into the case new issues to be tried
| The due enforcement of the decree does no
| necessitate such action, and If 1T so hap
pens that the decree of this court in favo
| of the government creates a situation which
| shall give rise to controversies betWeel
stockholders OF the Securities Company a
to how the holdings of that company in tn
| two railway companies ought to be dis
tributed, or what, should be done to sue
holdings these questions which can b
settled among the stockholders themselves
who are more Immediately concerned i
these things, and according to those prln
ciples of law and equity which any cour
having general common law and equit
powers is competent to enforce. Leave t
| intervene is denied