The Newark star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1909, 1909-07-01
Vice Chancellor Howell
Tells Why He Refused
Blanchard Injunction.
OPINION FILED TODAY IN
FIRST STEP OF FIGHT
Thinks Greater Points at Stake
and Says Stockholders Have
Complete Guarantee.

That the refusal of Vice -Chanceilor
Howell to grant a preliminary re-
straining order in the matter of Leon
F. Blanchard VS.. the Prudential In
surance Company has no bearing on
the main issues between the parties Is
apparent in the lengthy opinion of the
court delivered 20 counsel in the mat
ter today
The vfce-chancellor says .r asfsct
that the evidence presentedsO
hearing on the preliminary Injunction
was entirely too meagre TO decide the
main questions at issue, the settlement
of which depends upon a large number
OF facrs which could not be properly
presented by an ex perte hearing.
The fact. which seems. from peru
sal OF the opinion. to have borne great
weight with the court was that an in
junction would work an almost irrep-
arabic injury. while a continuance OF
the matter in its present form until
final hearing on the permanent order,
would work merely financial damage
that was slight In comparison and
from which the stockholders were fully
protected by the directors of the COM
pany.
Tho 1r,iyatrr. FnjI1x.-c r-,I1
The Opinion.
THE bill in this case is filed against
the Prudential Insurance Company Of
America and its directors individually.
for many forms of relief, among which
is the one hereinafter mentioned, con-
cerning which argument was had on
June 29
''on June 18th the company, at q
meeting of its board of directors.
passed resolutions which effectuated
these results First, an increase in the
amount of insurance purchasable at the
present rate of premium, which is prac-
tically a reduction of the rate premium
on all industrial policies to be issued by
the company after July 5. 1909; and,
second. the granting of additional bene-
fits to the holders of policies which is
sued after January 1st, 1907. and shall
be in force on July 1st. 1909. The bene-
fits to the existing policyholders con-
sist in additions to the amount which
shall be paid to each of those policy
holders in case the policy shall be in
force at the time of the death of the
policyholder. 1t is alleged on the part
of the complainant that this schems
shall go into effect JIly lst and I am
therefore driven to a speedy teeisio1
OF the motion, without as much oppor-
tunity to examine into the matter as
the magnitude of the interests involved
demands.
From my very hasty and imperfect
examination into the case I have come
to the conclusion that an injunction
ought not to issue and / now state
shortly the grounds which influence
my mind in that direction.
"At the outset of the argument it was
conceded by the complainant that no
injunction should be issued to prevent
the company from lowering the rates
of premium on policies to be hereafter
issued, that no injunction In respect Of
that matter was moved for, and that
probably the court could not restrict
the company in this regard. unless the
rates were placed so low as to endanger
the very existence of the enterprise.
This, therefore, leaves open for con-
sideration only one question, viz.
whether an injunction ought to issue
to prevent the company from paying
what are called the additional death
benefits to the representatives of such
policy holders as shall die between the
filing of the bill and the probable date
of the final hearing of this suit who
hold policies issued since January /,
1907. and which shall be in force on
July 1, 1909
The complainant seeks the injunc-
ton upon the ground of the Imperative
of such action by the court
In order to preserve the subject mat-
ter Of the litigation. or. as it was most
forcibiy put by complainant's counsel.
TO preserve the status quo. and
vent the accruing and haymenl