Defeated in their appeal to the securityholders, the opposition turned to the courts. As a preliminary, they obtained an opinion from the well-known firm of Messrs. Evarts, Choate & Beaman, which held, first, that the Erie could not legally pay interest on the new bonds proposed until it had paid the interest on every one of the old second mortgage bonds, regardless of whether the latter was deposited with the reorganization committee; second, that if the old second mortgage bonds which were deposited as security for the new issue should be kept alive as proposed, the company would be increasing its obligations beyond the legal limit;[144] and third, that much of the stock voted at the special meeting at which the new mortgage had been authorized was not really owned by the persons who had issued the proxies thereon as the law provided.[145] Following the opinion, suit was commenced by Mr. Harriman in April for an injunction against the recording of the new mortgage, on the ground that the Drexel & Morgan proxies did not represent the actual stockholders, and in June by one John J. Emery to prevent the execution of the mortgage. Judge Ingraham in the Supreme Court Chambers denied an injunction, using in his opinion the following language: “While it is clear,” said he, “that there are certain obligations resting upon the majority to refrain from infringing the legal right of the minority, and that a court of equity will enforce and protect the rights of the minority, still, when the holder of a very small number of bonds or shares of stock seeks to enjoin a very large majority from carrying out a plan such majority deem to be for their benefit, I think the court should not interfere unless it plainly appears that some legal right of the minority is endangered.”[146]