New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-04-04
M4NDATE ON APRIL II.
Opinion an Northern Securities Case
Handed Dozen in Supreme Court.

Washington. April 8.-Chief Justice Fuller to-day
handed down The opinion OF the United States S,l-
preme Court IN the case OF Hartman against tie
Northern Securities Company, the decision in which
case was ammo several weeks ago The mo
zion that the mandate be issued Immediately was
denied. The date Of issuance being fixed for Aprtl II
After stating The case at length. the Chief Justice
said.
In the present case compialnants seek the return
OF property delivered 10 The Securities Company
pursuant 10 executed contract OF sale on The
record discloses special considerations OF equity
yes.lee OF PuDse toAcy which would justify the
a recovery The Circuit Court DEGREES and the az
put rest any question that the ratsbe distribu-
ton resolved on was IN violation OF public policy.
psln ants o. majority Of The total Northern Pa
would not only be IN itself ineouitable, but would
The N6rfhern Pacific system ta<er in o,,re
ton with TIE Burlington system Is competitive
with the Union Pacihc system, and II seems Oh
vious rs. tho entire record considered. that The
smother that competition. While the superior
Of the many holders of securities shares who pur,
chased n reliance on the belief that they thereby
the Securities Company are too plain TO be ignored
The illegal contract could not be made legal hy
sstoppel' out me ohnershlp OF the assets, un-
affected by special interest in complainants
their conduct in holding the Securities Company
out 10 the world as unconditional owner. And,
set out is plain that right Of RECESSION Of the ez
ecuted contract Of November Is 1901, II re-
csion could have otherwise beeIl sustained had
been lost by acquiescence aud laches al the time
this BIZ was filed
Since The transfer. Of that date Securities stock
bad passed into the hands % more than twenty five
9uheIea neloers, many OF them in Great Britain,
France ana other parts % Europe. nearly year
sold FOR cash. complainant Hartman CON
curing. Some months after. Hartman and Pierce
s14.00 shares 10 the Equitable Trust Company Not
Niiist9nding the decree 81 april y 1908 they stood
~ after March p 1894 when defendants board OF
director resolved upon ratable distribution that
compliments undertook 70 change an election al
rtsoy - ronoaneed AZ a. he irFehoeabe ia itself in
View ~ The rights q others
We regard The CO mention that compliments are
eAfinpt iioLA me eoc1Il6e ln pan dencto because
tioa 90 violate 2Ee law As without merit WIN
parties turned Out 20 De mistaken supposing that
ne s-allte Moelo no. pe held applicable TO the
against the other. and defendant secured unfair
advantage IA retaining the consideration voluntarily
delivered Tor The Price agreed With fun knoWl-
edge 81 that Intention me proceedings Of the Two
souIe and unconditional sale and purchase,
hold the transaction To have been
Ne ind evidence % any express agreement
that compliments should be entitled 70 the new
Increase q tie Cd stock bur the result Of The ez
sr ; q Inc s 81 10 &c ne purchase
and not IN trust and cannot be disturbed because
delcto. And there is here no offer Of The restoTa-
tion II the status quo. II that were practicable.
company 10 end situation that had been ad Judged
unlawful and this could pe emected by sale and
distribution IN cash By distribution IN kind ard
the latter method was adopted and wisely adopted.
Is we think for the forced sale Of several hundred
millions OF stock would have manifesty involved
disastrous results.
IN fne the title 20 these stocks having intention
ally been passed. the former owners or part Of
them cannot reclaim the specific shares. and must
be content With their ratable proportion Of the
corporate assets.
Decree affirmed: cause rema naed 10 Circuit Court
with direction 10 dismiss the bill
FRANCHISE TAX ARGUMENT NEXT WEEK.
Washington. April 8.-The argument IN the New
York franchise tax pending IN the Supreme