The Detroit times., 1911-05-16

amount OF the stock which had been
turned over 10 the New Jersey COM
pany in exchange for its stock.
SO far as the owners OF the stock
OF the subsidiary corporations and
the corporations themselves were
concerned after the stock had been
transferred, section six OF the decree
enjoined them from I'm any way con-
spring TO violate the act or 10 mon
opolize or attempt TO monopolize In
virtue of their ownership OF the stock
transferred 10 them and prohibited
all agreements between these sub
sidiary corporations OF other stock
holders in the future, tending TO pro-
duce or bring about further violations
OF the act.
by section seven, pending the ac-
complaining the dissolution OF the
combination by the transfer OF stock
aud until II was consummated, the
defendants named In section one, con-
stituting all the corporations TO which
we have referred, were enjoined from
engaging In or carrying Interstate
commerce. And by section nine. among
other things a delay OF 30 days was
granted for the carrying into effect
the directions OF the decree.
$50 far as the decree held that the
ownership OF the stock OF the New
Jersey corporation constituted COM
bination in violation. OF the first Sec
ton and an attempt TO create mon
opoly or to monopolize under the Sec
ond section and commanded the dis
solution OF the combination, the de-
cree was clearly appropriate. And
this also Is true OF section five or the
decree which restrained both the New
Jersey corporation and the subsidiary
corporations from doing things which
would recognize or give effect TO fur
Their ownership in the New Jersey cor
poration of stocks which were ordered
10 be transferred.
The contention is that, insofar as
the relief by way of injunction, which
was awarded by section 6 and against
the stockholders OF the subsidiary
corporations or the subsidiary corpora
tons themselves after the transfer or
stock by the New Jersey corporation
was completed In conformity to the
decree. that the relief awarded was
too broad
Because II was not sufficiently spe-
cific and tended to cause those who
were within the embrace OF the order
TO cease to be under the protection or
the law OF the land and required them
to thereafter conduct their business
under the jeopardy Of punishment for
contempt for violating general in
junction Besides, II is said that the
restraint imposed by section even
putting out OF view the consideration
Just stated-was moreover calculated
TO do injury TO the public. and 1t may
be in and of itself, TO produce the very
restraint on the due course OF trade
which it was intended to prevent.
I'm other words We construe the
sixth paragraph OF the decree not as
depriving the stockholders or corpora
tions of the right TO live under the
law of the land. but as compelling
obedience TO that law"
Our conclusion is" said the chief
Justice, that the decree below was
right, and should be affirmed except
as 10 the minor matters concerning
which we have indicated the decree
should be modified. Our order will
therefore be one OF affirmance with
directions, however, to modify the de-
cree in accordance with this opinion,
the court below TO retain jurisdiction
TO the extent necessary TO compel
compliance in every respect with its
decree. And so 1t is ordered"