The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-05-15

insSsos tant judicial rccisaspn - ~ 49, - the
C,sy ~ Trey Against shs nss1 Vsaps naas-
road Company. o'e,n,s - l'.r ~
our Troy oOnsssrsEsnzcz.' -
r IA. Toy, Nay IA, 1887.
Judge VIM. q Wright has rendered his decision deny
ing me no<on 10 appoint receiver In the important
cause Known % the CRY Of Troy against the UNI Rail
road Company, comprehensive rssms q which appear
Cd In the HERALD Of the 18th The decision wholly
upon the side Of the various railroad corporations through
out the STATE and win 90 far 10 emboidsn them IN their
vaous schemes OF public and private plumber, namach
a. utterly fails To show up properly, and a. should
nave dsne the dahcnesy and illegal Of thai
rnonsrous monopoly, the New York Central Company,
and s sduncs in this Tho motion was based upon
the ground that receiver should be appointed 70 take
possession Of the Troy Union Railroad and enforce the
collection Of such sums DUE and shall hereaf
ter become due 10 tho city from the several roads
making up the Union Railroad Company. pen5e,us
lite This, the Judge denies, upon tho ground
that Il relates only 10 the preservation OF property
In controversy pending the litigation, and argues that II
such popery DO not in danger OF being wasted or mis-
applied It's value security materially impaired by
audulent collision acts OF the defendants, legal
owners should not be divcsed of rs custody control
ne he s a 81
apple ion is unprecedented, especially In an action to
enforce specific performance, to appoint receiver TO
specifically perform tbs contract ds,k lite; al,o that
Il would be novel exercise Of power by such an appoint
ment 10 dives the party against whom performance
sought To be enforced temporarily, OF ha ability to
perform This is the gist OF tho FIRST part on
Tire decon for divided into two pars In the first of
which is asked that the defendants DO decreed TO per
form contract in fix parts, executed on the
third OF December 1852 and upon which point this portion
Of the decision turns In relation TO the second
fact regarding the complaint 6led for the foreclosure OF
the plaintiff mortgage and that such Is the ultimate re-
hef to be obtained the Judge holds substantially that the
plaintiffs interests not 10 such eminent peril "as for
their proceclon to call upon this Court TO exercise the
powers by the appointment Of receiver, OF virtually
diesolvng the Troy Union Railroad Corporation, the mort
gager pendI the proceedings for foreclosure This would
IN eec, be done by appointing receiver OF their entire
property with The power OF exclusive management and
control Of IT," He further holds that Shen morigagcd
premises inadequate security for the debt and the
any deficiency and there is equitable pledge of the
rents, and profits Of tho mortRaged promises,
With the Wow Of imp0upd;ng such rents and pro
fits for the indemnity u the mortgage a court Of
equity win ordinarily appoint receiver But ouch
authority viii be exercised any when the receiver
desire no, to impound fund TO secure the mortgage
against ultimate os OF the principal of bis debt but 70
collect such and profits and apply them pe5essk lie
ray accrung interests any portion OF the principal
that may becc due the morgagee will the
hority be exerted when II not apparent that the sa
| ton will be protraced"
The dnusof the decision thon Is to the eec. hat the
city cannot enforce the specific performance of agreements
Railroad Company The city Is only left 10 enforce its
contract with the poraon Of the Union Railroad by
which II would seem thai agrt ed In Of default II
would primarily resort to force against the raid
oorporatOn and In Of failure ~oud then proceed
against the four roads for any defcsncy that might
few days, take further counsel 70 what viii hereafter
be done In the