Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-02-21
His Fight With Fish Over
the Illinois Central,
Injunction on the Stock Dis
solved by Judge Ball.
Hartman Has Control, Through
286,23I Shares Involved.

chicago, FEB. 2O.-E. H. Hartman
Thursday gained complete victory
in the Illinois Central litigation which
has been in the superior court since
last October. Judge Ball Thursday rem
dered a decision dissolving the tempo
rary Injunction granted to Stuyvesant
Fish by which 286,231 shares Of stock
were enjoined from being voted at the
annual meeting Of the Illinois Central
r. II. Co. This stock which was held
by the Union Pacific r. r. Co. and the
Railroad Securities Co. of New Jer-
sey can now be voted at the annual
meeting which will be held in this city
March 2.
Mr.. Fish, who was formerly president
Of the Illinois Central filed a bill Oct.
IA, 1907, asking that 286,231 shares Of
Illinois Central stock owned by the
Union Pacific Railroad Co., the Rail-
road Securities Co. and the Mutual
Life Insurance Co. Of New York, be
enjoined from being voted at the an
nual meeting Of the railway company,
set for Oct. 16. The matter was taken
before Master in Chancery Browning.
VINO recommended the issuance of the
temporary injunction as asked in the
upon by Judge Ball, who issued a
temporary restraining order.
Mr.. Fish was Joined in his suit by
of Vermont, John A. Kasson, former
minister to Austria, and by William
H. Enrich. =
The bill alleged that the defendants
held a controlling part of the out
90 90. L. h.
pany. Mr.. Fish averred that the board
of directors was dominated by Edward
H. Hartman and said that the voting
Of this stock should not be allowed, as
it would injure the interests of himself
and other stockholders.
On Nov. 25 the compliments appear
ed in court and dismissed their bill in
so far as it related to the 5000 shares
of stock held by the Mutual Life In
surance Co. The defendants then pre-
scented a motion to dissolve the tempo
rary injunction. Arguments upon this
motion continued through several days
and were long and exhaustive. The de-
cision of Judge Ball Thursday was on
motion to dismiss the injunction.
During these arguments the annual
meeting of the Illinois Central Railroad.
which had previously been continued
from time to time. was set for March =.
The bill originally filed by Mr.. Fish was
based on the theory that the public policy
act of Illinois prohibits foreign corpora
tons from holding and voting stock in
Illinois corporations save in certain eX
ceptions allowed by statute.
The conplainants commended that the
fact that certain exceptions are allowed
by statute proved that the public policy
act should hold good in this instance.
The Railroad Securities Co. of New Jer
sey, which Is n holding and investment
company, was characterized by Judge T..
II. Farrar, counsel for Mr.. Fish, in the
injunction proceedings. as q ''mongrel
corporation" This company controls So
600 shares of Illinois Central stock. The
remainder of the stock enjoined is owned
by the Union Pacific Railway Co. 1t was
shown during the arguments that much
of this stock stood in the names of
clerks employed by Kuhn. Loeb e Co. of
New York. While the stock involved is
but 23.G FER cent of the total issue OF
$4,000 shares. it was declared by coun-
sci at the hearing before Judge Ball to
be a controlling interest.
Counsel for Mr.. Hartman commended
that IN previous annual meetings MI.
Fish had reaped the benefit of these
votes and that if such voting was Illegal
he was aware of it and should not be
allowed to enjoin it from being voted by
other people.
The progress of the suit has been
watched with great interest in financial
circles and the decision of Judge Bali
Thursday will have widespread effect
upon corporations holding stock in Hi
nols corporations.
During the hearing on the INDUCTION
many affidavits were filed on each side
accusing the other of illegal acts.
The decision of Judge Ball amounted
TO about 5000 words. After going at con,
siderable length into the various claims
and assertions made by both sides. the
court went on to say:
II. is urged that the complanants I'M
Continued on Page Two)