Rice v. H.L. Doherty & Co.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1911
• Docket Number: 2,139.,2,138
• Citation: 184 F. 878
• Parties: RICE et al. v. H. L. DOHERTY & CO. (two cases).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

184 F. 878

RICE et al. v. H. L. DOHERTY & CO. (two cases).

Nos. 2,138, 2,139.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

January 31, 1911

John M Chilton, Harace Stringfellow, Ray Rushton, Fred S. Ball, and Wm. H. Samford, for appellants.

B. P Crum, for appellee.

Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges, and TOULMIN, District Judge.

PARDEE Circuit Judge.

These two appeals are in the same case, which is in equity for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of the majority of the stock of the Citizens' Light & Power Company, and may be disposed of together.

In 2,139 the order appealed from is one maintaining the status quo, and was proper and necessary to preserve the property sold in such condition as to enable the court to pass on the issues involved, and render effective judgment in the premises. None of the assignments of error in relation to this order are well taken.

In 2,138 the order appealed from, while on the same line and for the same purpose, was granted on amended and supplemental bills bringing in new parties and disclosing a state of facts amounting to a concerted scheme to so involve the stock claimed in the suit and the affairs of the Citizens' Light & Power Company and of the subsidiary and dependent Citizens' Light, Power & Heat Company to such an extent as to render nugatory, if not valueless, any decree the complainants might obtain in the line of specific performance of their contract, and therefore said order is properly much more comprehensive in preventive relief.

From the standpoint of the parties defendant, who are all either charged with notice or volunteers, we find no objection sufficient to warrant a reversal or modification of the order, and only two contentions that merit any discussion. The more serious one is that the case made by the bills and affidavits is one where one corporation engaged in furnishing light and heat to the city of Montgomery and the inhabitants thereof is seeking by means of this suit to obtain possession and control of a rival and competing corporation with the intention of controlling and monopolizing the entire business, and that a court of equity on grounds of public policy will not lend its aid to carry out such purpose. See American Biscuit Co. v. Klotz (C.C.) 44 F. 720. We have given the contention, which was very ably and exhaustively presented by counsel orally and in briefs, very careful examination and full...