Court Opinion

ID: 8745165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 11:04:00.344288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:00:37.606463
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Motion for reargument on notice to defendants was heard by me September 30, 1901. Affidavits were read in behalf of complainant, denying the charge of violation of the anti-trust act, the alleged pooling of business, and the apportionment or division of money received by various railroads for sale by them of reduced-rate Pan-American tickets. Defendants, in reply, read additional affidavits, corroborative of their charge of iniquitous conduct by the complainant with respect to the tickets in question. Answers in behalf of 38 defendants were served and filed, denying the commission of the wrongful acts charged in the complaint.
Important and difficult questions of law are involved in the determination of this motion. A disposition of it on the affidavits presented may fail of having the facts carefully examined and deliberately heard. The original motion for injunction was denied, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the court filed August 26, 1901. The Pan-American Exposition, on account of which the reduced-rate ticket was issued by the complainant and other roads associated with it, will close its gates on October 31st, — within 17 days. It is doubtful whether the necessity for immediate protection from alleged wrongful acts now exists. Inasmuch as the defendants have read additional affidavits and filed an answer corroborative of the charge of the existence of a combination in violation of law, the issues now raised ought not at this time to be disposed of summarily.
Motion for reargument denied as to defendants who have appeared and answered. Defendants who have not answered, of course, may be proceeded against in accordance with the ordinary rules of equity procedure.