The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-01-04

all who are entitled to participate in a distribution of the corporate assets. we are of tn opinion that the injunc- tion which prohibited 1t should no longer remain in force.
 If the question before us had in- volved, and decided the suit of the United States vs the Northern Securi- ties Company, or if 1t had been passed upon, though but incidentally by the Supreme Court of the United States in disposing of the appeal in that case, we, of course, would not regard 1t as an open one. But it was neither de- cided nor considered at any stage of that litigation.
 'The petitioner bill of the United States did pray that the stockholders of the railroad companies who had ex- changed their stocks therein for stocks of the Northern Securities Com pany should be required to surrender any stock of the Northern Securities Company so acquired and held by them and to accept therefor the railway stock in exchange for which the same is issued. but the decree. in so far as 1t was mandatory. went no further than to prohibit the doing of the spe- cifc things. which. being done, would affect the result denounced by the act -S193, IT. s. 356. This was all that was requisite and 1t was accomplished by that part of the decree which had been already quoted. and the added clause, though apparently suggested by the prayer of the bill to which 1t re- ferred, was not intended to have any obligatory effect. It was permissive merely, and this plainly appears from it's terms that 1t is necessary only to direct attention to them. They are:
 But nothing herein contained shall
 be construed as prohibiting the North eri Securities Company from return
 ing and transferring to the stockhold- CTS of the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Great Northern Rail- way Company, respectively, any and all shares of stock in either of said rail- way companies, which said, the North ern Securities Company may have here tofore received from such stockhold- CTS in exchange for It's own stock, and nothing herein contained shall be con strued as prohibiting the Northern Securities Company from making such transfer and assignment of the stock aforesaid to such person or persons as may now be the holders and owners of
 its stock originally issued in exchange or in payment for the stock claimed | to have been accumulated by 1t in the aforesaid railway companies.
 This decision was affirmed in It's en- tirety and the complainants ask leave | to intervene in the Minnesota suit.
 The decision here reviews the Minne-
 sota litigation and in conclusion says: | From all that has been said in the | foregoing the decision below must be reversed"
 Judge George Gray of Delaware filed
 dissenting decision. He said:
 T dissent from the judgment of the ! majority of this court. I do not think the judge below exercised other than
 sound Judgment in granting the in
 junction. Nothing but clear convic- tion that the bill was without equity would have justified the court below in refusing the injunction. I am of the opinion that the injunction has been given due consideration to all parties to the suit, and a case estab- iished to entitle compIainants to the protection of the injunction, I am in
 favor of affirming the decree"