Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-02-21
HARTMAN
WRES7S l. c.
FROM FISH
BATTLE OF RAILROAD TlTANS
ENDED BY COURT
JUDGE DIssoLVEs INJUNCTION
AGAINST STOCK
Decision Cannot Be Appealed, but
Fish Is Determined to Take Up
the Matter In Another

Ply Associated Press
CHICAGO, Feb. 20.--Judge Ball of
the superior court today dissolved the
injunctions secured last October by
Stuyvesant Fish by virtue of which the
Hartman interests were restrained
from voting 2S6263 shares of the capt.
tai stock of the Illinois Central rail-
road at the annual meeting of the COM
pany.
The theory on which counsel for Mr.
Fish based their arguments in support
of the injunction-that 1t was contrary
to the laws and public policy of the
state of Illinois to allow foreign corr
porations to own and vote the stock of
domestic corporations-was denied by
the court
Under the ruling of the court the pre-
viously enjoined stock which is held
by the Union Pacific railroad and by
the Railroad Securities company of
New Jersey can be voted at the annual
meeting of the Illinois Central which
is to be held in this city on March 2.
There is no appeal from the decision
handed down today by Judge Ball, but
it is considered possible that Mr.. Fish
will take further legal steps to regain
possession of the Illinois Central.
Try Case on Merits
Judge e. B. Farrar of New Orleans,
WllO has dCleQ dS ltdulllS COuuSti
Mr. Fish throughout the controversy,
said today, after the rendering of the
decision, that the case will now be tried
on its merits, but declined to say how
many new proceedings will be insti-
tuted.
None of the principals in the case
were in court, both Mr.. Fish and Mr..
Hartman being in New York. All the
attorneys on both sides and many otner
lawyers and business men were present
and filled the courtroom to overfiowing,
President Harahan of the Illinois Cen
trail came in while the decision was
being read and heard the latter portion
Of 1t. When the conclusion had been
reached he said:
my head is too full of that decision
to allow me to say anything, but to
say that I am highly pleased, and
more than highly pleased is putting it
mildly"
Judge Ball. who is of somewhat frail
physique, turned over to his son the
task of reading the decision, which con-
tained almost 10000 words. AS soon as
it was concluded there was veritable
stampede In the courtroom, brokers,
lawyers and messengers making a rush
for the doors in order to announce the
result. They ran into various rooms
seeking for telephones, and many tore
headlong for the elevators, while others
fed wildly down the stairways. Such
excitement and confusion has not been
witnessed In the county court house for
many years.
Proves No Contentious
The court declared that Mr.. Fish had
not been able to prove any of his con-
tentions that the domination of the
Illinois Central by Mr.. Hartman
would be to its detriment, and had also
failed to show that the interests of
the stockholders would be injured
thereby The Union Pacific and the
Illinois Central, he said, We're not COM
peting, but are connecting links, and
one. could not be a commercial rival
of the other in such a sense as to fall
within the scope of the legal decis-
ions against the alliances between
competing railroads. The two roads,
the court declared, were not so situated
as to make it possible that they could
combine to monopolize traffic in any
section of the country.
The court further declared that IL
the name of Mr.. Hartman was not g.
name to conjure with, many of the al
legations made in the case would not
be considered seriously. He was COM
PEELED to act, he said. on facts alleged
and proved, and not supposed prophe-
sizes.
The record of the case, he declared,
failed to substantiate many of the dec
larations made against MIR. Hartman.
The decision of Judge Hall was quite
extended-about 10000 words. Af-
ter citing the history of the case and
going at considerable length into the
various claims and assertions on both
sides. the court went on to say;
All Stockholders Interested
"It is urged that the complainants
under the rules of equity practice
should have requested the officers and
directors of the Illinois Central to
bring this suit that such request
and refusal by the corporation are
necessary prerequisites to their right
have been brought by the Illinois Cen
trail. It's subject matter is one in
which all the stockholders of that corr
poration are equally interested. Be
fore a stockholder is entitled in his
own name to institute and conduct a
litigation which usually belongs to the
corporation, he should show to the sat
isfaction of the court that he called
upon the directors to- bring the suit.
and their neglect or refusal to comply
with his request; or he must show
that an application to them would have
been useless.
"The bill as amended alleged that
complainants made no application to
the company to bring this suit first,
because they believed they have the
Individual right as stockholders to
bring this action; and, second, that II
wo,lid have been idle to have made
such application, because eight of the
thirty-two directors of the Illinois
Central believe that the Union Pacific
and the Railroad Securities company
have The right to hold and to vote the
stock severally owned by them; be-
cause three of these directors particle
mated I'M the unlawful acts complained
of and five others would nave been