The Injunction Was Dissolved

The Argus Can Manage Its Own Property

WITHOUT THE RECEIVER

Receiver Johnson, of the Ann Arbor Printing Co., Failed to Make His Injunction Stick

The injunction obtained some week ago by Charles J. Johnson, receiver of the Ann Arbor Printing Co., on an exparte showing against the Democrat Publishing Co., D. A. Hammond and S. W. Beakes, came up for hearing Monday before Judge Kinne and the injunction, after argument, was immediately dissolved. A. J. Sawyer & Son appeared for the receiver, Prof. T. A. Bogle, M. J. Cavanaugh and Arthur Brown for the defendants.

Mr. Sawyer in his argument admitted that the injunction was too broad, that they had no claims to the Daily or Weekly Argus, but only to the plant.

Mr. Bogle showed by the sworn averment of Mr. J. E. Beal in the suit appointing Johnson receiver that the plant was leased to the Ann Arbor Printing Co., but that the lease had expired. He argued that Mr. Johnson had not been legally appointed receiver of the Ann Arbor Printing Co., that the company had no claims upon the property of the Democrat Publishing Co. and that even if the claim set up in the bill was correct his remedy was not in equity but in replevin, that all the material averments of the bill which were only on information and belief were fully denied by the sworn answers of the defendants and that Mr. Beal in his sworn statement of the affairs of the Aim Arbor Printing Co. under which the receiver was appointed expressly set up the same state of facts as did Messrs. Beakes and Hammond.

This point seemed to appeal to Judge Kinne, who asked if it were not likely that the parties to the agreements would be in a better position to know what was done than the receiver, who could only state it on Information and belief.

At the conclusion of the arguments Judge Kinne said he could not overlook the averments of Mr. Beal. The property had remained in the hands of the defendants six months. The answer had denied the facts averred in the bill and he did not think it equitable and proper that the injunction should longer hold and he should order it dissolved. The injunction was accordingly dissolved.

In the course of the argument, Mr. Bogle put up a strong argument on the question as to whether Johnson was legally a receiver of the Ann Arbor Printing Co., but the judge did not go into the question, taking the position that the defendants in he case at issue were not the ones to raise the point as they were not parties to that suit.