Schwabacher v. United States, Civil Action No. 713.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
Writing for the CourtDOBIE, Circuit , and BARKSDALE and HUTCHESON
Citation72 F. Supp. 560
PartiesSCHWABACHER et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 713.
Decision Date14 June 1947

72 F. Supp. 560

SCHWABACHER et al.
v.
UNITED STATES et al.

Civil Action No. 713.

District Court, E. D. Virginia.

June 14, 1947.


Robert M. Cooper, of Washington, D. C., and William M. Blackwell, of Richmond, Va., for plaintiffs.

George R. Humrickhouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Richmond, Va., Daniel R. Kunkel, Atty., Interstate Commerce Commission, of Washington, D. C., and Edward J. Hickey, Jr., Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., for defendants.

J. C. Kauffman, of Cleveland, Ohio, John W. Riely and George D. Gibson, both of Richmond, Va., John C. Shields, of Detroit, Mich., and George H. Gardner, of Washington, D. C., for Chesapeake & O., Pere Marquette, and Alleghany Co., intervening defendants.

John R. Turney, of Washington, D. C., for Wellington & Co., et al., intervening defendants.

Moultrie Hitt, of Washington, D. C., for Sterling, Grace & Co., et al., intervening defendants.

Before DOBIE, Circuit Judge, and BARKSDALE and HUTCHESON, District Judges.

72 F. Supp. 561

DOBIE, Circuit Judge.

This is a civil action brought by plaintiffs, owners of 2,100 shares of 5% cumulative preferred stock of Pere Marquette Railway Company, to enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend, in whole or in part, an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission approving the merger of the properties and franchises of the Pere Marquette Railway Company into the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company for ownership, management and operation.

At a hearing in Alexandria, Virginia, before the three-judge court, we denied the temporary stay sought by plaintiffs. The case is now before us, upon a motion of defendants to dismiss, on its merits. We think this motion must be granted.

Plaintiffs do not seek to set aside the merger, nor do they deny that the merger is in the public interest. They do claim, however, as set out in their complaint: "Failure to include protection for plaintiffs as dissenting shareholders, as a distinct class created by the merger is contrary to law and a direct violation of the Commission's statutory duty to impose just and reasonable conditions for the protection of all interests involved."

The Transportation Act of 1920, as amended, Section 5, 49 U.S.C.A. § 5, requires that the terms and conditions of the merger be "just and reasonable." The Commission filed a long and elaborate opinion dealing with all the relevant issues in this case. One peculiarly pertinent paragraph is as follows:

"Accordingly, considering the Pere Marquette's investment according to its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Schwabacher v. United States, No. 258
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1948
    ...Virginia to set aside the order authorizing the merger. A court of three judges, convened as required by law,3 sustained the Commission, 72 F.Supp. 560. Appellants bring to us4 the question whether the Commission, in view of its authority over mergers, which is declared to be exclusive and ......
  • Stott v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 27, 1957
    ...774; Public Service Commission v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 241, 73 S.Ct. 236, 97 L.Ed. 291; Schwabacher v. United States, D.C.E.D.Va., 72 F.Supp. 560, reversed on other grounds 334 U.S. 182, 68 S.Ct. 958, 92 L.Ed. 1305; Id., D.C., 104 F.Supp. On this application plaintiffs have not present......
  • Auburn Sav. Bank v. Portland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • February 28, 1949
    ...the exclusive jurisdiction given to it by the Holding Company Act. The Schwabacher case originated in the District Court E. D. Virginia, 72 F.Supp. 560, 561, out of a merger of the Pere Marquette Railroad Co. into the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. The Pere Marquette was incorporated und......
  • Schwabacher v. United States, No. 1738-51.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • May 9, 1952
    ...duty to impose just and reasonable conditions for the protection of all interests involved." Schwabacher v. United States, D.C., 72 F.Supp. 560, 561. On June 4, 1947, that Court heard argument on plaintiffs' request for a temporary stay of the Commission's order. The temporary stay was......
4 cases
  • Schwabacher v. United States, No. 258
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1948
    ...Virginia to set aside the order authorizing the merger. A court of three judges, convened as required by law,3 sustained the Commission, 72 F.Supp. 560. Appellants bring to us4 the question whether the Commission, in view of its authority over mergers, which is declared to be exclusive and ......
  • Stott v. United States
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • August 27, 1957
    ...774; Public Service Commission v. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 241, 73 S.Ct. 236, 97 L.Ed. 291; Schwabacher v. United States, D.C.E.D.Va., 72 F.Supp. 560, reversed on other grounds 334 U.S. 182, 68 S.Ct. 958, 92 L.Ed. 1305; Id., D.C., 104 F.Supp. On this application plaintiffs have not present......
  • Auburn Sav. Bank v. Portland R. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • February 28, 1949
    ...the exclusive jurisdiction given to it by the Holding Company Act. The Schwabacher case originated in the District Court E. D. Virginia, 72 F.Supp. 560, 561, out of a merger of the Pere Marquette Railroad Co. into the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. The Pere Marquette was incorporated und......
  • Schwabacher v. United States, No. 1738-51.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • May 9, 1952
    ...duty to impose just and reasonable conditions for the protection of all interests involved." Schwabacher v. United States, D.C., 72 F.Supp. 560, 561. On June 4, 1947, that Court heard argument on plaintiffs' request for a temporary stay of the Commission's order. The temporary stay was......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT