Show i 3 LENT transaction a A lerback victorious in the oft I 1 g company controversy merritt rendered a decision yes yea la in the important injunction suit J Eller El lebeck heck vs john G the plaintiff brought troug lit an action it midgley tt et al to obtain ade n dc ng the pretended sale ot of I 1 tit M of th lh capital stock of the plumbing supply company by ell sailing to john R winder jr 14 ilant ME and void and irking asking tor for an toll a enjoining wl winder n der frona from or to in a any ny manner SS r ring iid tock stock and enjoining I 1 ri all otter other persons from voting lock at any meeting or of the stock th 1 ot of said eald company end and enjoining lra nii dalit lants Vid ridgley Midy gley ley farrell aus aue 1 green while assuming ass to act ketera ot of said corporation from rom AJ tny any new stock block of the corpora t citing certificates thereon and 10 br string with plaintiff in the BIK vt lot any ot of his duties dullea as att ctt r of ct said faia corp and en SA bt said ald midgley from ae acting ting or nl ILL it to act as such euch maniec manager r 3 W ielne ng upon luponi the matter judge judae I 1 it said ald W A conspiracy and var v ar 3 of dl fraud are alleged in tile alis OL t to tho testimony was quite I 1 arr MM Us ind in some ome matters conr s 10 ali after a careful consideration all ony and a review of the alic 10 is i I 1 am clearly of the opinion 1 I e pretended intended sale cale of stock was waa 71 vt la IB good filth nor in the in n ole B C corporation b but ut for the Ls 1 bl of t 91 ghang ing the d madg 11 or friends control of the rom com L of tho the riots rig ts of plain ih aft alwa a 1 majority of the stock catrini a iwason Iwa Uon OTI it Is unnecessary to W ja 1 tile many faeta facts and circum u ill render this conclusion ft it to lo the mind of the court as I to il la is emitted with 4 cc fbi tile e pretended tale sale of 0 stock M ro ef voia the action of defend a to remove james as bial alit 1 m I 1 tf the th corporation an and put a 11 aa pl place and in at attempting t epting t tile he f rom an the apost poal afta tt dual their e ir ab pence NO mii aa end tn meeting all of w 1111 I 1 th they h had no I 1 teina n business ness transacted acted at 11 A 4 told january y 5 16 1895 95 were 11 cial I 1 g of t law there was 01 a ri air 1 f action of the board of vf VA laid id 11 corporation 0 Is the rith 2 clearly 11 en titled 10 ia B prayed n to the in S ltd 21 for lr and to kd ile have av the t q IUS e of stock ja illegal to winder dolatta delatta ka ill and void old and the cancelled V it la is so BO or rell 0 lion of IT rh H 0 moyle tor for 4 the dej arty a K the days stay y was s trant grant IA tm and ltv purpose the 6 of perfecting alne tl ne an aji 11 1 1 1 I 1 ra d at bond 0 of tle the plaintiff |