Show NO consolidation decision in N P railroad case supreme court decides that the great northern shall remain separate washington march 30 the effort of thomas W pearsall a stockholder in the great northern railroad company to prevent a consolidation of that corporation po ration with the northern pacific railroad had a successful issue today when mr justice brown announced the opinion of the supreme court of the united states the case came up from the circuit court for the eighth circuit which rules against pearsall he contended that the proposition to unite the two systems was in violation of atie law of minnesota enacted in 1874 which prohibited the consolidation of competing lines ol 01 the road on the other hand it was the contention of the managers that the law was a violation of the provisions of the charter of the minneapolis st cloud railroad the original link of the great northern line authorizing it to lease or purchase other lines of the road the question becore the supreme court of the united states said justice brown was whether or not the law of 1874 was an impairment of the vested rights of the great northern company discussing the meaning of the term vested richt the opinion stated that in the view of the court it did not extend beyond the right acquired by or under executed contracts it was within the power of the legislature under a general permission such as expressed ia the minneapolis and st cloud charter to require other roads to declare that it shall not be used to acquire competing lines and anus construct a monopoly for yeara had been held by the courts in england and this count y to be odious and against public policy the judgment of the circuit was reversed and be case remanded with instructions to proceed in accordance with the opinion sir justice field and mr justice brewer dissented from the judgment 0 the court mr justice brown also read the opinion of the court in a similar case of the louisville nashville railroad company versus the commonwealth of kentucky appealed from the court of appeals in that state the louisville nashville had arranged to purchase control of the ohio southwestern railroad company auld give it a practical monopoly of the railroad business between louisville and memphis and the state brought suit for an injunction to prevent the carrying out of the contracts on the ground that it would be a violation of the law of the state forbidding the consolidation by lease or purchase 0 competing lines of road withie the state the injunction was issued by the inferior court and sustained by the court of appeals judgment alie supreme court 0 the united states affirmed the opinion declared it to be the opinion of the court that not only was the louisville A nashville company forbidden to purchase but by the constitution of tennessee of which the ohio southwestern was a citizen it was incompetent to sell the conclusion of the court was concurred in by justices brewer and white |