The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-07-16
E. H. HARTMAN SCORES
SECURES INJUNCTION IN NORTH
 ERN SECURITIES CASE.
Temporary Restraining Order Grnntee By Judge Bradford Preyenting Distributi0n of thA HolA1ngp
 of the Concern.

Trenton, N. J, July 1s.--Judge Brad- ford today granted a preliminary in- junction 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 a defeat for the Hill interest. The opinion is fifty typewritten pages in length.
 The litigation turned largely on the question as to the title of the Northern Pacific stock which E. H. Harriman n and Winslow s. Pierce put into the combination and which amounted to about s79,o00,0oo.
 The contention of the Northern Secu- rites Company was that the stock had become the absolute property of that company and that 1t was perfectly legal for the Northern Securities Company to carry out the pro rata plan of distri- button upon which the company had agreed. Hartman contended that by reason of the corporation being de- clared illegal by the United States Su- preme Court, title had not passed from Hartman and Pierce, and in conse- quenc they were entitled to have re- turned to them the particular stock they had put into the combination and which involved control of the Northern Pacific Company.
 The decision of Judge Bradford does not dispose of the main points at Issue In the case which were whether or not Hartman and Pierce should have re- turned to them the stock of the North ern Pacific Company which they put into the Northern Securities Company or whether they should have distribu- ted to them the stock of both the Northern Pacific and Great Northern companies on the pro rata basis pro- vided for by the directors of the North ern 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 he takes the position that as long as there Is any doubt in the case and no injury can come to the complainants a pre- liminary injunction should be 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 position where they would not be able to se- cure relief to which they would be en- titled should the case be- decided in their favor on final hearing.
 Judge Bradford said that a prelimi- nary injunction should only be referred where 1t was absolutely positive that the complainants could not win the case when 1t came to a final hearing. The complainants were entitled, he said to the benefits of every reasonable doubt as to the disposition of the case when 1t should come upon final hearing and he intimated 1t was not always easy to anticipate judicial decision even when all the facts had been pre- sented. In the present case. he stated there were n number of points upon which 1t would be necessary for the presentation of more evidence than is now before the court. Judge Bradford in discussing the individuality iof granting preliminary injunction said that such an injunction would not inter fere with the operation of either rail- road nor would 1t be injurious to the public.
 He said it might be contended that the injunction would interfere with the distribution of the dividends on the Northern Securities Company or at least on part of that stock. but that 1t was within the courts power to re- quire bonds to protect any stockhold- CTS from any possible loss. Judge Bradford fin his decision does not pro- NibC ioi tiic hoi ol d utCTtG anu dShS that a form be submitted to him.
 In granting a preliminary injunction the judge has followed practically the policy that controlled Judge Kirk patrick when the latter granted an injunction restraining the Pennsylvania Railroad Company from taking down the poles and wires of the Western Union Telegraph Company when the company had been ordered to, remove those poles and wires from the railroad company's property. The point then as now was that unless a preliminary injunction had been granted the relief sought could not be obtained although decision might be granted in favor of the complainant on the final hearing In the present case Hartman and Pierce are asking for the return of the particular stock of the Northern Pa cifc Railroad Company which they put into the combination. If the prorata distribution were not to be enjoined and Hartman and Pierce would win on the final hearing. the particular stock for which they are suing to recover would already be distributed and their victory would be a barren one.
 -