Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1868-01-01
Liability of Receivers" OF Railroad

We called attention last week To what We
supposed to be an accurate report of a recent
decision in Massachusetts court respecting
the liability of the receivers of the Vermont
Central railroad, in courts of law, for their
acts as common carriers. correspondent
IN the Burlington Times, writing of this re
ported decision, says it is not law i'll this
State and after abiding to n case decided
several years since, says
And in the more recent ease OF Bitn.enttIsa
u Smith, Brdtnerd amt C1drE, reported in
/ Vol. 30 W. Reports, 40l, which was AN nc
tien against the defendants common car
riers, for the loss of certain goods, Judge
Kellogg, III delivering the opinion oI the
Court, saws THE defendants claim that
they were operating the Vermont Central
and Vermont and Canada Railroads as Re
eeiverS under the appointment OF the Court
of Chancery, and that being the agents and
officers of that Court under their appoint
ment, they We're subject 10 account only IN
that Court, and were entitled to Its protec
ton and judgment in all matters growing
out of the performance of their duties
such Receivers, and therefore could not be
made liable either as common carriers or
ware hnuso,aor ia thir action.
But We think that the mere fact that the de-
PENDANTS were acting as Receivers under the
appoin tment Of the Court Of thanccry, can
not be recognized defence to suit at
law for breach Of any obligation duty
which was fairly and voluntarily assumed by
them III matters of business conducted or
carried on by them while acting such Re
ceiyers. As between Receiver and the
parties interested in the trust, the Receiver
would be responsible for negligence; but he
might be liable 10 other parties in larger
or stricter degree of responsibility. The
assumption by the defendants of the particu
lar duties and extraordinary responsibilities
arising from the relation of common carriers,
is not to be construed as necessarily. If at
ALL Incompatible with any duty RESPONSE
bility imposed upon them Is receivers. The
plaintiffs evidence tended t. show that the
defendants were managing ami controlling Il
I long line of railroad, and conducted and
held themselves out common carriers over
: that line. If i'll fact they were common
carriers over that line OF railroad, think
/ ii is no defence to action 1T law for a
breach Of Il duty or obligation arising out of
business entrusted to them in that relation,
that they were running and managing the
! line of railroad Receivers under APP
/ pointnent of the Court of Chancery.
BY what ingenious process OF pettiiogging
the Boston Court was hOcuSSed into making
such decision as the one referred to it is
impossible to conjecture. The " little game .
had been twice tried in Supreme
Court but without success, rs the above de-
cisions show. 1t seems that the defendants
succeed better iii foreign than in home
courts but . prophet i not without
honor except i'll his own country
We trust this correspondent IL right in
his apparent confidence that the courts in
this State will not follow this Massachusetts
decision, although we do not quite share
that confidence. Very likely the courts will
hold that the receivers are common carriers
as they did in the case reported in the 3Sth
Vermont Reports, but it by no means follows
thut they will not, application, enjoin
any suit at law against these receivers,
turning the plaintiff,-as we said last week
over to the court of chancery for relief
La fact as we are informed, this has been
done in a case in Washington county, on the
express ground that the receivers were Off
GERS or agents Of the court of chancery, and
all claims against them should be adjudicated
in that court In ,chat order claims will be
paid. if allowed. in that court is a subse
!. quent question
We are quite sure it will be important
properly the rights of all parties, if the
Legislature, at it's next session, shall pass a
law clearly defining and fixing the liability
of persons operating railroads, and also pro-
viding that the rolling stock and other
property Of the road shall be holden upon
all judgments which may be rendered against
> those operating the road, whether as re-
ceivers, or in any other capacity.