The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-06-15

On Wednesday of this week a suit. charging contempt of court, was brought against the officers of the Louisville and Nashville Road. on the grounds that in their continued opera ton of the South and North, pending the action of the Supreme Court in the custer decision, they were disregarding the decree of the Montgomery City Court.
 Does Not Represent Minority. In the litigation against the Lous- vile and Nashville Railroad. Messrs. Gray and Moore, who now have suits pending in the Montgomery courts. are suing by virtue of their position as mi nority stockholders of the South and North. The greatest strength that MT. Gray has developed during the fight was at the last annual meeting of the stockholders of the South and North. held on November 25, 1905, when a total l of fifty-eight shares of stock wero voted In favor of propositions advanced by his attorneys. Of these ffty-seven were voted by the Gray interests by proxy, one additional share being voted | by minority stockholder in person | In opposition to the vote of the Gray l interests there was cast vote of 1.6SI shares held by minority stockholders | in which the Louisville and Nashville Railroad had no interest, the 31,27s | | restrained from voting by an injunc- l ton.
 l At this meeting, the representatives | of MT. Gray made an effort to vote a l total of ITO shares, on the claim that he was owner of 122 shares which were not shown on the books of the | company, the certificates representing | which 1t was claimed had been lost
 and not replaced by new certificates l Thus 1t will be observed that the l litigation of Messrs. Gray and Moore
 is not contest between the minority and majority stockholders.
 | Owing to the importance of the liti- l gation against the Louisville and Nashville. and the widespread interest which 1t has aroused throughout the State, the opinion handed down yes- terday is published In full. as follows: | Text of Opinion.
 | South and North Alabama Railroad company ct al, V. Henry B. Gray. ct al. and Henry B. Gray ct al. v South and North nnsail Railroad os Company. ct a, Court. Anderson. J.
 "rhe original bill in this case at bar ing between the two Companies. by inc complainant Gray. a minority stock holder, in the South and North Com oeiver. and for an injunction restrain ing the directors om proceeding with the proseeution of a bill heretofore rand fided nsyv by them for for the South and North ConTt. seeking an accounting between the two companies, as we'll as a sale of tne south and North Railroad Com pany 10 the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company
 The South and North Company nov ca 10 dissolve the injunction against it's restrain them from further prosecuting | the case in the Jefferson Chancery | Court: because there Is no equity in junction And seeks by this appeal to ! review the action of the judge of the City Court in refusing its motion.
 sufficient to warrant the s' interferenee ne s aoe by injunction, the injunction may be- dissolved for want of equity in that tained for other reiiefpNorr%is lief @ % Y. Norris Ne rs. Ala. Al Atai; sss. 'l'' Harrison V. M'crary. s7
 'srhe original bill in the case at bar shows upon it's face the Jefferson coun- tv Dill and the filing thereof. and that It was filed in response to a demand made upon the directors of the South and North Company by Henry B. Cray
 Tt Is to be observed that the Chan cery Court of Jefferson county had ac- quired jurisdiction on the subject mat facie proper parties necessary to an ac- counting. It is true the complainant. | cray. was not party to the Jefferson l county case. g ths suit was properly instituted by the directors in the namo of the South and North Railroad Com pany which Is the proper party com plainant. It could not be maintain ed by stockholder, except under certain loonditions. which will be hereafter dis cussed and considered.
 | Lack of Jurisdictfon.
 "Tt must be further observed that
 the Jefferson County Chancery Court has coordinate jurisdiction with the Montgomery City Court. and Is compe- tent to grant all equitable relief obtain able In said City Court. When the ju- l risdiction of the Chancer-- Court has once attached, its Jurisdiction will not be disturbed by that of another court of equal powers: Troy Co. V. Prest- | wood. 116 Ala, 119.
 | "It Is an admitted principle. that where two courts have an equal and | concurrent jurisdiction. the one that commences the exercise of its jurisdic-