Northern Securities Co. v. Harriman
Citation | 134 F. 331 |
Decision Date | 03 January 1905 |
Docket Number | 52. |
Parties | NORTHERN SECURITIES CO. v. HARRIMAN et al. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Elihu Root and John G. Johnson, for appellant.
D. T Watson and Wm. D. Guthrie, for appellees.
Before ACHESON, DALLAS, and GRAY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the Northern Securities Company from a decree of the Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey awarding a preliminary injunction, by which that company was restrained from disposing of 717,320 shares of the common stock of the Northern Pacific Railway Company. It appears from the opinion of the learned judge of the court below that in granting this injunction he was materially influenced by the consideration that the questions involved were, as he viewed them, serious and doubtful, and that a decision by him denying the injunction would, if made, not be reviewable upon appeal. We think that upon this ground he was justified in requiring that the status quo should be preserved, and the subject-matter of the controversy be withheld from dissipation until the judgment of this court could be obtained. But now the substantial rights of the parties only need be considered, and whether the injunction should stand or be dissolved ought, in our judgment, to be determined upon the merits, and without further delay. Western Union Telegraph Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 123 F. 33-36, 59 C.C.A. 113. There have been cases, it is true in which it has been held that, where the court of first instance has unreservedly exercised its discretion in granting or refusing a preliminary injunction, its action ought not to be interfered with by an appellate court 'unless there is some strong reason for it. ' Massie v. Buck, 128 F. 31, 62 C.C.A. 535. But to the circumstances of this case those rulings are inapposite. Attentive reading of the opinion of the learned judge of the Circuit Court has satisfied us that he regarded the fact that an appeal would not lie from a denial of the injunction as 'of controlling importance,' and that his decision was made with the understanding that the defendant below would be entitled to invoke a complete adjudication of the entire controversy by this court; and we think that reason and justice demand that such an adjudication shall not be further postponed. The injunction complained of precludes the enjoyment of rights of ownership in property of great value. The facts upon which the propriety of upholding it depends are unquestionably disclosed in the record before us, and the principles by which the legality of the order awarding it must be tested are indubitable, and may be as readily applied now as at any time hereafter. The only substantial question is as to whether the decree below was accordant with law, and that question this court could not refuse to determine without, in effect, renouncing the appellate jurisdiction which Congress has expressly conferred upon it.
In November, 1901, the Northern Securities Company was incorporated under the laws of the state of New Jersey. Its total authorized capital stock was $400,000,000, divided into 4,000,000 shares of the par value of $100 each. The amount of the capital stock with which the corporation could commence business was fixed at $30,000. Its duration was to be perpetual, and its objects were certified to be, inter alia, as follows:
Authorized Capital Stock, $400,000,000.
No. -- . . . . -- Shares.
Northern Securities Company.
Incorporated and Registered Under the Laws of the State of New Jersey.
This Certifies that -- is the registered holder of -- Shares of the Capital stock of the Northern Securities Company of One hundred dollars each, transferable only on the books of the company by the holder hereof, in person or by duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of this certificate.
This certificate shall not become valid until countersigned by the transfer agent and also by the registrar of transfers.
In testimony whereof, the said company has caused this certificate to be signed by its President and Treasurer this -- day of --, A.D. 190-,
--, Treasurer. . . . --, President.
Countersigned this -- day of --, A.D. 190-.
--, Transfer agent.
Countersigned and Registered this -- day of --, A.D. 190-.
Manhattan Trust Company, Registrar of Transfers. By --, Secretary.
Shares, $100 each.
In March, 1902, a bill was exhibited by the United States, in the Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, against the Northern Securities Company, the Northern Pacific Railway Company, the Great Northern Railway Company, James J. Hill, William P. Clough, D. Willis James, John S. Kennedy, J. Pierpont Morgan, Robert Bacon, George F. Baker, and Daniel Lamont. The object of this bill was to restrain the violation of the act of Congress of July 2, 1890, c. 647, Sec. 1, 26 Stat. 209 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200), entitled 'An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restrains and monopolies,' and the suit which it originated was so proceeded with that in April, 1903, the said Circuit Court adjudged and decreed:
'That the defendants above named have heretofore entered into a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce among the several states, such as an act of Congress approved July 2, 1890, entitled 'An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,' denounces as illegal; that all the stock of the Northern Pacific Railway Company and all the stock of the Great Northern Railway Company now claimed to be held and owned by the defendant the Northern Securities Company was acquired and is now held by it in virtue of such combination or conspiracy in restrain of trade and commerce among the several states; that the Northern Securities Company, its officers, agents, servants, and employes, be, and they are hereby, enjoined from acquiring or attempting to acquire further stock of either of the aforesaid railway companies; that the Northern Securities Company be enjoined from voting the aforesaid stock which it now holds or may acquire, and from voting at any meeting of the stockholders of either of the aforesaid railway companies, and from exercising or attempting to exercise any control, direction, supervision, or influence whatsoever over the acts and doings of said railway companies, or either of them, by virtue of its holding such stock therein; that the Northern Pacific Railway Company and the Great Northern Railway Company, their officers, directors, servants, and agents, be, and they are hereby, respectively and collectively enjoined from permitting the stock aforesaid to be voted by the Northern Securities Company, or in its behalf by its attorneys or agents, at any corporate election for directors or officers of either of the aforesaid railway companies, and that they, together with their officers, directors, servants, and agents, be likewise enjoined and respectively restrained from paying any dividends to the Northern Securities Company on account of stock in either of the aforesaid railway companies which it now claims to own and hold; and that the aforesaid railway companies, their officers, directors, servants, and agents, be enjoined from permitting or suffering the Northern Securities Company, or any of its officers or agents, as such officers or agents, to exercise any control whatsoever over the corporate acts of either of the aforesaid railway companies. * * * '
Upon ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United Artists Corp. v. Piller
...violate the law. Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U. S. 244, 25 S. Ct. 493-505, 49 L. Ed. 739, affirmed Northern Securities Co. v. Harriman, 134 F. 331, 67 C. C. A. 245. From these decisions it is clear that an action cannot be maintained on a contract which is directly connected wi......
-
Western Electric Co. v. Cinema Supplies
...the discretion meant is a sound judicial discretion exercised in conformity with equity rules and precedents. Northern Securities Co. v. Harriman (C.C.A.) 134 F. 331, 332, affirmed 197 U.S. 244, 25 S.Ct. 493, 49 L.Ed. 739; Winchester Repeating Arms Co. v. Olmsted (C.C.A.) 203 F. 493; Schey ......
-
Southern Ry. Co. v. Simon
... ... Rosenbaum, etc., Company, 130 F. 110, 64 C.C.A. 444; ... Northern Securities Company v. Harriman, 134 F. 331, ... 67 C.C.A. 245; Kerr v. New Orleans, 126 F. 924, 61 ... ...