Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1866-12-06
The Rutland a. Burlington Rail-
road First Mortgage Bonds.
BILL TO FoRRcLosE THE PIRsT MORTGAGE.
Notion for an assignment for a final hearing
on the BIZ.
STATE OF VRRMoNT-RuTLAND, IS, I
In CHAsoERY, Nov. 26, 1856.

Ia, v. CkILoG6, SuanStiioi'- 7h' Nh~'"oe's'
James Cheever and HTlliam r. Hart, Trustees
ct al, e. The Rutland 4 Barltngton X Il,
Co., Ed,pin 4. Birehara ard join ". Ste,c-
art Trustees, ct al.
This is bill brought In January, 1864,
by the trustees of the first mortgage
bonds OF the Rutland & Burlington
Railroad Company and certain first
mortgage bondhoiders to foreclose the
first mortgage on said road. The re-
spondents are the Rutland & Burling-
ton Railroad Company the trustees of
the second and third mortgage bonds of
said road, and certain holders of these
bonds.
These first mortgage bonds were dated
at Boston, February l, 1851, and made
payable at the office of the treasurer of
the company In that city, They were
not to be issusd beyond the amount of
81 800, 900, the interest at seven per cent.
falling due semi-annually and the prin-
cipal payable February |, 1858, twelve
years from their date. They were Sc
cured by deed of conveyance of the
road and all its property to Franklin
Haven and Samuel Hopper, both of Bos-
ton, as trustees, conditioned, that on de-
fault in the payment of interest or prin-
cipal the trustees and their successors
might foreclose the mortgage. 1t APP
pears that Messrs. Cheever and Hart,
two of the complainants in this case,
have succeeded Messrs. Haven and
Hooper and intermediate trustees in the
discharge of said trust, and that John
B. Paige has succeeded Stewart, one of
the respondents.
In August, 1858, q second mortgage
was made by the company conveying to
Samuel Henshaw andp. Thomas Steven
son as trustees of the same property that
conveyed by the first mortgage and sub
ject to it to secure the payment of bonds
to the amount of 81, 100000, and suisse
quently another mortgage for about the
same amount, was executed, called a
third mortgage. 1t appears that no in
terest has ever been paid on either of
those last mortgages.
In November, 1858, the company hav-
ing become insolvent, voluntarily sur
rendered the possession of the road and
all its property to the trustees under the
second mortgage, to preserve it from
Judgment creditors and with the view
no doubt to better sustain in market the
value OF the bonds issued under the sec
ond mortgage, a large amount of which
was either still in the hands of the cor
poration or held as collateral security by
its creditors.
No default was made in the payment
Of any of the first mortgage coupons
until after the surrender. In January,
1866, meetings of both first and second
mortgage bondholders were held, and
through committees appointed at these
meetings "terms of arrangement were
agreed upon which subsequently were
embodied in decree of the court of
Chancery, in a suit which was instituted
| for the adjustment of the rights of all
| the parties. This decree was recognized
/ and ac9ed upon by all parties in interest
| and provided that the second mortgage
| trustees should continue in the posses
sion and management of the road until
the maturity of the principal of the first
| mortgage bonds on the first day of Jan
uary, 1868. at which time the first mort.
goge trustees should take possession
unless the whole of the first mortgage
debt hrd been paid. 1t also provided
that all the net earnings during this Pc
Rod should be applied to the payment Of
the firit mortgage coupons.
The second mortgage trustees held
| possession Of the road under said decree
down to Feb. l. 1868, a period of eight
years, paying but five semi annual cou.
| pons during that time, and leaving all
| h~t hae nt EnI
| over due and unpaid. The first mort.
| gage trustees then demanded possession
| of the road, which was refused. This
refusal caused the first mortgage trustees
| to file the present bill, to which the
| several respondents have filed answers
| or demurers, the answers amounting tC
| a general denial Of the facts set forth BY
the complainants. The compliments
| testimony had all been taken and filed
| July, 1856, at which time the court
| granted the respondents till the 25th o.
the following August in which to filt
| their testimony, since which time five
| different extensions have been obtained
| for that purpose by them from tLt
| court, the last extension expiring on the
| 25th of August last. In this state of the
| case the complainants filed motion, or
which the present hearing was had, thai
the court assign an early day for hear
ing of the case on its merits.
The respondents commended that thu
court ought not to grant hearing or
the main case until all interlocutory mo
lions on file had been disposed of, among
which was one filed by them for fur
Their extension of time within which tc
complete their testimony and which
theytnow proposed to bring up. This
motion was supported by affidavits Of
counsel that it was their belief that
more than 100000 in amount of the
first mortgage bonds were held by parties
| opposed to the prosecution of this suit
and that the examination of some hall
| dozen witnesses named therein was
important to the defence of the race
1t was objected by the counsel for the
orators that this application for an ex-
tension was simply for the purpose OF
| delay and not made in good faith, be-
cause the witnesses whose testimony
the respondents counsel affirmed was
| important had already been examined