The Birmingham age-herald., 1906-06-15
SUPREME COURT
 IS AGAINST GRAY Makes First Ruling in South &
 North Case HEAD NOTE FURNISHED Opinion Was Written and Concurred In By All the Judges Save Chief
 Justice Weakley In Both Points.
HEAD NOTE FURNISHED

Montgomery, June 14.-(SpeciaL) )-In the first ruling handed down today by the supreme court on the litigation inau- gurated by Henry B. Gray of Birming ham against the Louisville and Nashville railroad. MT, Gray loses in both the two points involved. The city court of Mont gomery is reversed in granting an in- junction to restrain an accounting sought by direction of the directors of the South and North in the chancery court of Bir mingham, and affirmed in it's refusal to grant receiver pending an accounting.
 The opinion Is written by MT. Justice Anderson and concurred in by all the judges save Chief Justice weakley, who Is disqualified. It sets out that as MT Gray sought an accounting of the oper- alton of the South and North by the Louisville and Nashville, and the diree- tors undertook to have such provided by the chancery court in Birmingham, that court Is competent to redress any wrongs that might be introduced in any way and the city court of Montgomery had no right to assume Jurisdiction. It is also held that there Is presented no reason for a receiver.
 Briefly stated, the situation Is this: Gray sought an order for an accounting of the control of the operations of the South and North. The directors filed a bill for such action in the chancery court of Bir- mingham. Gray, alleging that this was in the interest of the Louisville and Nash vile, made application in the city court of Mont fROmerW fnr a p order trai nj m, r such accounting at the same time asking for a receiver for the South and North, pending litigation. The city court of Montgomery granted the restraining or der, from which the South and North appealed, and refused the application for receiver, from which Gray appealed. The supreme court reverses the restraining order and sustains the receivership ruling as noted.
 Because of the importance of the lltga- ton the case has been headnoted by Justice Anderson of the court that all the lawyers of the state may be advised of the points upon which the case went off. This is here given:
 Head Note on Case
 If the allegations of a bill are not suf- ficient to warrant interference by in junction, the injunction may be dis solved for want of equity, in that respect and the bill restrained for other re- lief
 "One court should not enjoin proceed ings previously instituted in another court of like Jurisdiction, where the first court whose jurisdiction is invoked, has ade- quate power to grant the relief sought in the second suit.
 Stockholders can sue to redress cor porate wrongs when the directors refuse. after demand, to do so, or when it is averred and shown that the demand would have been useless.
 When the stockholders demand the filing of a bill for an accounting, and the directors comply with the demand and invoke the jurisdiction of the chancery court, the stockholders will not be per mitted to maintain a bill for the same purpose in another court to coordinate Jurisdiction, or to enjon the proceed ings previously instituted upon his de- mandS.
 "The fact that the directors are unfit to do or will not prosecute the cause In good faith, is no grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of another court. The first court, having acquired Jurisdiction of the subject matter, the stockholders have a right to intervene and protect themselves against a colusive or fraudu- lent prosecution of the suit upon timely application, and after making q proper showing to the court in which the first suit Is pending.
 When a bill primarily filed for an ac- counting shows upon its face that the court has no jurisdiction to hear and consider the same, a receiver pendente lite Is properly denied"
 The ruling of the supreme court is in-