The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-07-15
COURT ENJOINS
HILL INTERESTS
Distribution of Northern Pacific
Shares Contributed by Har-
riman Forbidden.
Preliminary Injunction Is Granted
in New Jersey, but Appeal
Will Follow.

Trenton, N. j., July 15.-Judge
Bradford today granted a preliminary
injunction in the suit brought by Ed
ward H. Hartman, Winslow S. Pierce
and others to restrain the proposed
pro rata distribution of the assets Of
the Northern Securities company.
This Is defeat for the Hill in.
terests.
The opinion is fifty typewriter
pages in length.
The litigation turned largely on the
question as to the title of the Northern
Pacific stock which e. H. Hartman
and Winslow s. Pierce .put into the
combination and which amounted to
about s79,O00,000.
The contention Of the Northern Sc
curities company was that the stock
had become the absolute property Of
that company and that it was per-
fectly legal for the Northern Securi-
rata plan Of distribution upon which
the company had agreed.
Hartman contended that by reason
of the corporation being declared ille-
gal by the United States supreme
court, title had not passed from Har-
riman and Pierce, and in consequence
they were entitled to have returned
to them the particular stock they had
put into the combination and which
involved control Of the Northern Pa
cif1c company.
Main Points Undecided.
The decision of Judge Bradford
| does not dispose of the main points at
issue In the case, which were whether
Hartman and Pierce should have re-
| turned to them the stock of the
! Northern Pacific company which they
put into the Northern Securities COM
| pany, or whether they should have
distributed to them the stock Of both
the Northern Pacific and the Great
Northern company on the pro rata
basis provided for by the directors Of
| the Northern Securities company.
Judge Bradford devotes most Of his
/ opinion to the discussion Of a legal
question as to whether he should
grant a preliminary injunction, and
There is any doubt In the case and no
/ injury can come to the compliments,
a preliminary injunction should be
i granted.
! He says, further that the failure to
grant a preliminary injunction would
permit the distribution of the stock
in the Northern Pacific company to
which Hartman and Pierce claim
title, and put the complainants in a
/ position where they would not be able
to secure the relief to which they
would be entitled. should the case be
decided in their favor on final hear.
i ing.
i Entitled to Benefits.
The Judge also said that a prelim.
mary Injunction should be refused
only where it was absolutely certain
that the complaints could not win the
case when it came to final hearing.
The complaints were entitled, he said,
to the benefit of every reasonable
doubt as to the disposition of the
case on final hearing.
i 1t was not always easy to anticipate
a judicial decision even when all the
facts had been presented. In the pres
ent case, he stated, there were num-
Der of points upon which it would be
necessary to present more evidence.
Judge Bradford said preliminary
injunction would not interfere with the
operation of the railroad nor would IT
be injurious to the public. It might
would interfere with the distribu-
ton Of dividends on the stock of the
Northern Securities company, or al
least on a part of that stock, but thai
it was within the courts power to
require bonds to protect any stock
Followed Precedent.
Judge Bradford asks that a form
Of decree be submitted to him. Ir
granting a preliminary injunction the
judge has followed practically the
: policy that controlled Judge Kirkpat.
rick when the latter granted an in.
junction restraining the Pennsylvania
from taking down the poles and wires
of the Western Union when the
company had been ordered to re.
| move those poles and wires fron
the railroad property The point
then, as now, was that unless pre-,
liminary injunction had been granted
the relief sought could not be OBJ
tanned, even tho a decision might bs
granted in favor of the complainan
on the final hearing.
In the present case, Hartman ant
Pierce are asking for the return o.
) the particular stock of the Northern
: Pacific, which they put into the com
bination. If the pro-rata distribution
were not to be enjoined and Hartman
and Pierce won on the final hearing
a the particular stock which they ar,
a suing to recover would already be dis
: tributed and their victory would be
h barren one.