The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-06-21

railroad company from its control oi the South and North Alabama. In it's effect the opinion is decided victory for the railroad company, as | 1t operates to forestall further htiga-
 ton by Gray until the decision of th' Supreme Court on the appeal from th' Montgomery City Court. This deeisior
 will not be rendered until the cast comes up in the November term. It will directly act to prevent the hearing of the contempt proceedings which had been set for June 23, and will tend to prevent any other minor proceedings in regard to the custer de- eision, until the main Issue of the lit igation shall have been disposed of fn- ally.
 With the handing down of the de cision. moreover. the struggle which has been carried on in the courts be- tween G~ay and the Louisville and bearing on the quo warranto proceed ings are concerned, confued to the Su- preme Court.
 One suit, instituted by the stock holders of the South and North at
 the insistence of Gray. a minority
 stoekholder in that road, is still pend ing in the Jefferson Chaneery Court having been transferred back there on an appeal from the Montgomery Equity Court by the Supreme Court Bench in an opinion handed down two weeks ago. Still another suit, which
 Is regarded as belonging to the Gray
 series of litigation, is the application
 of Walter l.. Moore. of Birmingham another minority stockholder, recently entered in the Equity Court Of Mont
 eomery, for a receiver for the south and North. A hearing on this appli- cation will be held on Saturday Of this week before Judge Sayre,
 The entire Supreme Court bench sat in the consultation of yesterday, with the exception Of Chier justice Weekley, who Is disqualified because of his connection with the case. pre- vious to his appointment to the bencn
 The court went into consultation at 4 o,clock in the afternoon, and remain aa untu 6.3O o'clock. On the holding os inc court that the appeal from the 1nu,ar court superseedes any further action taken by that court. all the r,embers of the bench were agreed with regard to the--lssuanoe oI tnr
 s,rit of prohibition, however, there was " difgerence of opinion, Justices Iy- son ana simpson dissenting from the otbar members of the bench. Tollowing is the opinion ot the co"ro .I onisv,lle ' and Nashville Railroad cvompany V. The State of Alabama eA rai Henry B. GTdS v ei
 .Petltion for writ of prohloltioh or supercedas.
 ''Per Curiam. ...
 "we are clearly of the opinion that tbs anneal taken from the quo war ranto judgment under section S4SS ot inc code operated as supersedeas or that judgment and this without su- persedeas bond.
 ''By that appeal that cause was re- moved to this court and deprived the City Court of all power to enforce inc Judgment by any process whatever or to make or Issue any orders based thereon
 "All the Justices sitting. while con curing in the above entertain the opin ion except Justices Tyson and Simr- sen) under the peculiar facts of this case, that the petitioner ia entitled to he awarded the rule nisi for prohibit tion, which rule is made rcturnaSle tO the first Thursday of the November term 906 of this court.
 Rule nisi will Issue"
 It will be remembered that T. r. Brooks of Birmingham superintendent of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad and P. Sid Jenes of Birmingham, Pas senger Agent of that company. were cited by Judge A. D. SayFe of the Montgomery Ci:y Court to appear be, fore him on June 22 and show why they should not be adiudged In con tempt for operating the South and North after the order of custer had been made