The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1904-07-16


> President Hill would not say any =
= thing on the subject until at least =
after he had read the judges de- :
clsion.
Representatives Of J. p. Morgan =
& Co. and +. H. Hartman said >
= they did not care TO discuss the =
= decision until their attorneys had =
read it IL full II was said at Mr. :
= Morgan's office, however, that an :
> appeal would be taken. ,
, = =
TRENTON. y. j., July 15.-Judge
Bradford today granted a prelim-
mary injunction in the suit brought
by Edward r. Hartman. WinsIOW =
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 Hi in
terests. The opinion is fifty type
written pages in length.
The decision of Judge Bradford does
not dispose of the main points at issue
inf the case. which were whether or not
Harriman and Pierce should have re-
burned 80 them the stock Of the North
ern Pacific company, which they put
into the Northern Securities company,
oT whether they should have distrib-
nted 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 in the case and no injury
can come to the Complainants a pre-
Iiminary 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 compliments in a position
where they would be unable to secure
relief to which they were entitled
should the case be decided in their IA
voT on final hearing.
Entitled to Benefit Of Doubt.
The judge also said that a prelim-
mary injunction should only be refused
where it was absolutely positive that
the compliments could not win the
case when 1t came TO a final hearing.
The compliments were entitled, he
said. 10 benefits of every. reasonable
doubt as 10 the disposition OF the case
when il should come up on final near
ing, and he intimdted that il was not
always easy 10 anticipate q judicial
decision, even when all the facts had
been presented. i'm the present case.
he stated, there were number OF
points upon which il would be neces-
sary for the presentation Of more evi-
dence than is now before the court.
Injunction Not Injurious.
Judge Bradford. in discussing the ad-
Visibility Of granting a preliminary In
JUNCTION said that such an injunction
would not interfere with the operation
of either railroad. nor would il be in
5uriOus 10 the public. He said il might
be conteuGed that the injunction would
interfere with the distribution of divi-
dends on the stock of the Northern Sc
cuTities company, or at least on a part
Of that stock. but that it was within the
courts power TO require bonds 10 pro-
tect any stockholders from any posi-
bic losses Judge Bradford. in his de-
cisiOn. does not provide for the form of
a decree, and asks that a form be sub
mitted 10 him
Followed Precedent.
IN granting a preliminary Injunction
the Judge has followed practically the
policy that controlled Judge KiIpat-
rick when the latter granted an iniunc-
ton restraining the Pennsylvania Rail
road 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. even though 2
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
cific Railway company which they prlr
into the combination II the pro rata
distribution were not u be enjoined and
Hartman and fPerce would win ON tl7a
final hearing the particular stock which
tney are suing to recover would al
ready be distributed and their victory
would be q barren one.
Question Of Title.
The litigation turned largely on the
question as TO the title 10 me Northern
Pacific stock which i. II Harrir7a4,
and WinsI1w Speyer nut into fle ,.C,--
binatioH and which amounted to sbour
SO, 0o0,o00 The contention of ~
Northern Securities company was thaT
the stock had become the absolute
property Of that company and that If
was perfectly legal for The Northern
securities company to carry ont thn
pro rata plan of distribution uuo7
which the company had agreed.
riman commended that by relSo-' ,,- M.
corporation being declared illegal b,-
the United States supreme court ffrle
had not been passed from Hartman
and Speyer and in consequence they
were entitled to have returned 10 them
the particular stock they had mt INFO
the combination. and which involved
control Of the Northern Pacific com
pany.