OCR Text |
Show SECURITIES CASE BEING FOUGHT OUT TRENTON, N. J., May 23. Argument Argu-ment was resumed before Judge Bradford, Brad-ford, In the United States Circuit court today, In the suit brought by E. H Harrlman and WInslow S. Pierce to restrain re-strain the proposed plan of distribution distribu-tion of the assets of the Northern Securities Se-curities company. Argument was opened by John G. Johnson, representing the Northern Securities Se-curities company. He stated first, that the cdntroversy was not between stockholders. stock-holders. Neither was it a claim that the directors of the Northern Securities company had exceeded their powers. What is in dispute, he said. Is a plan of the Northern Securities company to distribute property which the complainants complain-ants claim to be their own. The case therefore stands, he said, on the question ques-tion of title to the Northern Pacific railway stock which was formerlv owned by Harrlman and Pierce and which was afterward acquired by the Northern Securities company. Mr. Johnson outlined a number of points on which he would base his argument. Among other tilings, he said, the bill of complaint was Insufficient because lt made no averment of title. The bill, he said, violated the settled principles of equality. The complainants were guilty guil-ty of certain matters and that at any rate they could not claim an interest in new shares of common stock which they had never owned. Mr. Johnson was caustic in his references' refer-ences' to Mr. Harrlman who, he said, became a director of the Northern Securities Se-curities company and that the stock acquired ac-quired by the Northern Securities company com-pany was acquired with the aid of Har-rlman's Har-rlman's vote. The stock held by Harrlman Harrl-man and Pierce In the Northern Pacific Paci-fic company, he said, was sold to the Northern Securities company and from that time Harrlman could have had no possible right In It other than interest in common with the stockholders of the Northern Securities company In property prop-erty belonging to the company. When the Northern Pacific stock was sold to tho Northern Securities company Harrlman Har-rlman and Pierce, with their eyes open, forewent any further rights In the stock disposed of by them. Their present pres-ent idea was to securo for themselves stock of the Northern Pacific Railway company, which had gone up, and to leave all other stockholders of the Northern Securities company to servo themselves as best they could out of-what of-what was left und out of what Harrlman Harrl-man and Pierce In their bill had claimed had depreciated In value. Mr. Johnson then read some testimony testi-mony given by Mr. Harrlman, in which the latter stated that the negotiations for the sale of his Northern Pacific stock had been conducted with J. P. Morgan & Co. Mr. Johnson argued "icii. ncii; iiu wuuairuuiurui relations rela-tions between' Harrlman and the Northern North-ern Securities company. He quoted from Harriman's testimony to show that at tho time the sale was agreed upon Harrlman only knew vaguely that the stock was to go to a holding company, com-pany, and he road Harriman's answers to the effect that in the negotiations Harrlman was not influenced by the fact that the stock was to go to such a company. Mr. Johnson read a resolution resolu-tion from the proceedings of the directors direc-tors of the Northern Securities company com-pany showing that this stock, 37,000,000 common and 41.000,000 preferred, should be acquired by )2,000,000, with payments of $S2,000,000 of the Northern Securities stock and by about 59,000,000 in cash. The purchase was authorized, and this, Mr. Johnson said, constituted a complete sale, leaving Harrlman with absolutely no rights with respect to the stock. A long cross-fire followed between opposing counsel and the court as to the exact point upon which the complainants com-plainants based their case. Mr. Johnson John-son Insisted that the contract of Harrlman Har-rlman to sell his stock was a complete one in itself and not a continuing one, as maintained by the complainants, and that the obligation of the Northern Securities company to hold the stock of tho Northern Pacific was not one In which Harrlman had nny right. This prompted Judgo Bradford to remark that he understood Mr. Johnson's point to bo that the continued holding of the Northern Pacific stock by the Northern Securities company Avas one of expectation expec-tation by Harrlman rather than a contract. con-tract. Mr. Johnson replied that so far as the records were concerned there was nothing to Justify an expectation. |