New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-06-28
THE RAILROADS VTCT0RS.
H. junction to PreUent TT1f.c Agree-
nlert Not INQdc Permanent.

tn. sDnl,cation OF Gustav E Rissel and Susan
Raunsr for the continuance Of a temporary in
junction obtained by them TO prevent the execu-
ton OF traffic agreement entered into between the
Chicago and Eastern Illinois Railroad Company.
the 81 Louis and San Francisco Railroad Com
pany the ST. Louis Memphis and Southeastern
Railroad Company the Colonial Trust Company.
the New-York Security and Trust Company, and
John d. FIHey was denied by Justice Giegerich
yesterday.
The Plaintiffs also sought TO enjoin the payment
OF any moneys under the traffic agreement object
cd to- and also the Issuance Of series of bonds
and notes secured by a mortgage. covering, among
other things, the traffic agreement.
The ST Louis and San Francisco Railroad Com
pany is consolidating and building up an extern
sive railroad system by acquiring control of and
grouping together various lines and systems pre-
viously operating independently and under separate
boards Of directors. One Of the railroads thus
acquired IS the Eastern Illinois Company. which
until its amalgamation in 1882, had been operated
at profit. The Southeastern Company, the earn
ings OF which have yet been insufficient to meet
the fixed charges, also acquired. The stock
obtained by the San Francisco Company by
the issuance Of its collateral trust notes in the
aggregate amount OF 100000. which notes are
stin outstanding. In addition, s5,OD)000 has been
spent by the San Francisco Company on the con-
strsction and completion Of the Southeastern Com
pany since it finished by the San Francisco
Company.
The traffic agreement was executed between the
three companies on April il last by which the
Southeastern company bound itself TO deliver TO
the others all traffic transported over any Of ITS
lines while the San Francisco and Eastern Illinois
companies bound themselves jointly TO eXchang"
collectively with the Southeastern company SUI
hcient amount of traffic during the term of the
agreement 10 produce. taken with the local and
other traffic OF the Southeastern company an ag-
gregate seTni-annuai ne revenue Of not less than
s4s5 900 and above Il expenses Of maintenance
etc. being the exact amount necessary TO pay the
gv-a l1g15a ne ref
The plaintiffs aleEe that this traffic is really
mortgage on the Eastern IlliT is property. i'm
posed without authority real or adequate con-
alteration and without regard 70 the interests Of
that corporation. but for making use Of the credit
OF It's established and dividend earning road 10
The hitherto unprofitabe Southeastern system.
Says Justice Giege-ich IN his opinion
II Is unnecessary 10 consider more than the single
question whether innocent pLIc4ldSe.s 10. '-I 1r
the bonds will be any better position 10 enforce
the traffic agreement against the eastern hllloIS
system than would the original larlE 70 IN boo
~ ,,ci,-is7 mis- trsf5c agreement with other as
eefs under the mortgage given 10 secure these
Tr6fre p going concern mortgages all its assets,
ioludua- outstanding contracts. II the MORTGAGE
- the owners Of bonds secured by the mortgase
thouId be held 10 have any greater or different
trfolerable confusion and injustice would result
ion which relates TO the issuance OF the ponds
maj The in5unction SO far IS It relates 70 ne
-afes should he dissolved is, IS understand the
,latfer practically conceded since the argument as
asoz rot refer 10 the traffic agreement
So far the other portion Cl me III -
concerned namely. that which :estralns the last
arr Illinois Company from paying o1t moneys OF
.hat company on account OF the 6Ldla! - -
li,pes- by the terms OF The agreement ohJectei 70
otherwise that any such moneys VII 5e p of
b its regular order