Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1867-06-06
The Rutland and Burlington Rail-
road.

Eoaus
At the March term, 1867, OF the Court
OF Chancery for the County Of Rutland,
(Vt.,) the Trustees and sundry OF the
bondholders under the second deed of
trust of the Rutland & Burlington Rail-
road, filed bill against the Rutland &
Burlington Railroad Company, the
Trustees and some OF the holders OF the
bonds issued under the third mortgage
on said Railroad, having for its object
the foreclosure OF the second mortgage.
Upon an appearance by the defendants
and the filing Of their answers, re-
ference was ordered to a Master to as
certain and report the amount due on
said second mortgage. Upon the coming
in of his report and hearing of the
cause thereon, and on the pleadings and
afildavits, the usual and ordinary decree
of foreclosure was entered and the time
OF redemption fixed, and in accordance
with the rules and practice of the Court
OF Chancery the decree was regularly
enrolled.
On the 4th day of May, 1867 Messrs.
Jacob W. Pierce, E. Stone Goodwin,
Freeman Rice and Sylvester Bowman,
all OF Boston, in the Commonwealth OF
Massachusetts,, and claiming to be own
ers Of third mortgage bonds, presented
petition, verified by oath, to the Hon.
Asahel Peck, one of the Chsncellors of
Vermont, praying that said decree might
be set aside and annulled and they per-
mitted to appear in the case, answer and
defend, for the reasons, as alleged in
their petition, that the Trustees and
bondholders under the third mortgage,
who were made defendants, were not
proper persons to represent that class of
bondholders, that said foreclosure "suit
was commenced and the decree obtained
pursuant to q fraudulent and corrupt
combination and conspiracy between
the orators and the defendants" and
that "the whole Of the proceedings in
said cause were conducted with inten-
tional secrecy and most preciptate
haste" and they also alleged that such
a decree "could not be obtained upon
fair trial of the cause with reasonable
representation of the interests Of the
holders Of third mortgage obligations"
An order was therefore made by Chan
cellor Peck, requiring the petitioners
(the orators in the original second
mortgage foreclosure suit) to show cause
c.; and appointed Chauncy K. Williams,
ESQ, Commissioner to take testimony,
&C., and fixed Tuesday, May 28th, for a
hearing on the petition.
Testimony was taken in Burlington
and Rutland, and also in the city of
Boston. The substance of the testimony
was that the third mortgage bonds were
without any actual or market value,
that the road and property was an insult
flcient security for the first and second
| mortgages, that there was no valid
| or possible defense on the part Of the
| third Trustees or bondholders to the
| suit to foreclose the second mortgage,
that the said third Trustees and bond
holders had rot made any defense to a
bill now pending to foreclose the first
mortgage but admitted in their answer
that so far as their interests were con-
cerned the first Trustees and bondholders
| opffflaI fn danran IF fnran1nonra
That there was no intended or actual
concealment or secrecy in the proceed
ings to foreclose said mortgage, nor any
agreement or understanding whatever
between the orators and defendants in
said cause; and that said cause was
commenced, conducted and managed,
and the decree obtained therein, and en-
rolled in the proper; usual and ordinary
way, and in the only manner that such
or any proceedings and decree could be
had and obtained under the statutes of
Vermont and the rules and practice of
the Court of Chancery.
Among the dispositions taken by the
pELlblUUSIS Was kIdL vi lslSCt
one of the petitioners, (subp@nas were
issued and placed in the hands Of reg
ular officer for all the petitioners, but
none of them except Rice appeared in
answer thereto,) who testified, among
other things, that he was the owner of
one of the third mortgage bonds, which
was given to him that he knew of no
defense on the part Of the third mort
gage bondholders to the foreclosure of
the first mortgage, but as to the fore
closure Of the second mortgage the de-
tense they relied on was that {" il the
first and second mortgage was paid off
then the third mortgage bondholders
would have an interest in the property
that was left after paying these" and
that he never knew or heard Of any other
defense.
The testimony having been taken and
closed, the cause came on for hearing