The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-07-16
STOCK WILL NOT
BE DISTRIBUTED
Hartman Wins a Point Against
President Hill.
AN INJUNCTION GRANTED
ANOTHER STEP IN NORTHERN
SECURITIES CASE.

@%%%A4444 = = = , 2 , = , p
New York July 15.--At the Office 2
of the Northern Securities COM =
Dany in this city. II was said that =
? President Hill would not say any =
= thing ON the subject until al least =
after he had read the judges de- =
= cisiOn
Representative of J. p. Morgan .
? & Co, and T. II. Hartman said ?
= they did not care 10 discuss the >
decision until their attorneys had =
= read il in full. 1t was said at MI =
MOTgau's office. however, that an >
appeal would be taken
= = > , > , , , , 2 = = , : ,
T BENTON. y. j.. July 15.-Judge
Bradford today granted a prelim-
mary Injunction I'm the suit brought
by Edward II. Hartman, WinslOw 5.
Pierce and others to restrain the pro-
posed pro rata distribution of the as
sets OF the Northern Securities COM
pany. This is a defeat of the Hill in
terests- The opinion is nifty type
written pages in length.
The decision of Judge Bradford does
moi dispose of the main points at issue
IN the case. which were whether OF not
Hartman and Pierce should have re-
turned 80 them the stock of the North
'ern Pacific company. which they put
Unto the Northern Securities company.
or whether they should have distrib-
oted to them the stock of both the
Northern Securities company, or
whether they should have distributed
10 them the stock Of both the Northern
Pacific and Great Northern companies
IN the pro rata basis provided for by
the directors Of the Northern Securities
company.
Injunction Necessary.
Judge Bradford devotes most of his
opinion TO the discussion Of a legal
question as to whether he should grant
q preliminary injunction, and he takes
the position that as long as there IS
any doubt III the case and no injury
can come To- the compliments a pre-
1minary injunction would 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 cOmpIainants in position
where they would be unable to secure
relief to which they were entitled
should the case be decided in their IA
vor on final hearing.
Entitled to Benefit Of Doubt
The judge also said that a preIim-
mary Injunction should only be refused
where il was absolutely positive that
the complainauts could not win the
ease when il came TO a final hearing
The compliments were entitled, he
said. To benefits Of every reasonable
doubt as 10 the disposition OF the case
when it should come up on final hear
ing. and he lntimated that il was not
always easy To anticipate a judicial
decision, even when all the facts had
been presented. In the present case.
he stated, there were a number OF
points upon which il would be neces-
sary for the presentation of more evi-
denee than is now before the court
Injunction Not Injurious.
Judge Bradford. I'm discussing the ad-
Visibility Of granting a preliminary in
Junction. said that such an Injunction
would not interfere with tn. operation
OF either railroad, nor would it be in
SuriOus 10 the public. He said it might
be conteuCed that the injunction would
interfere with the distribution Of divi-
deEds on the stock Of the Northern Sc
cJlrIties company, OF at least on a part
OF that stock but that 10 was within the
courts power 10 require bonds TO Pro-
tect any stockholders from any posi- /
bic losses. Judge Bradford. in his de-
eision, does not provide for the form of
decree, and asks that a form be sub .
mitted to him.
Followed Precedent.
IN granting a preliminary injunction
the Judge has followed practically the
policy that controlled Judge Kflpat-
rick when the latter granted an iniuuc-|
ton restraining the Pennsylvania Rail +
road company from taking down the
poles and wires OF the Western Cnicn g.
Telegraph company when the company f.
had been ordered to remove those poles
and wires from the railroad compauv-s
property The point then. as now. was
the unless preliminary Injunction
hat been granted. the relief ssugh-
coulS not be obtained. even though n
decision might be granted I'm favor of .
the complainant on the final heariD-.
In the present case Hartman and
Pierce are asking for the return of the
particular stock of the Northern Pa
cine Railway company which they put
into the combination II the pro rata
distribution were not T. be enfaiue7 and f.
Hartman and iPerce would win on tba
maj hearing the particular stock which
they are suing TO recover would al
ready be- distributed and their victory
would be a barren one.
Question of Title.
The litigation turned largely on the
question as 10 the title 10 me Norf horn
Pacific stock which l.. II. Hartman
and NinsloW Speyer put into the com
blnatlon ana which amounted to about
SI9,0oeo0e- The contention of rha
Northern Securities company was that
the stock had become the absolute.
property Of that company and thaf II
was perfectly legal for the Norrbar-,
Securities company To carry ou+ ibr
pro rata plan of distribution ur,-7
which the company had acre Ell. -
Timan commended that by reason 81 H..
corporation being declared fHegaI b,-
the United States supreme court firla
aad not been passed from Hartman
and Speyer and I'm consequence thew
we're emitted To have returned 10 them
the particular stock they had NM me.
me combination, and which involved
control OF the Northern Pacific com
pany.