Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1868-11-14

| A & w. RAILROAD EMBROGIIo.- OA
cult Court, Judge Thomas presiding, this
morning, issued decree of which the follow
ing is q copy
| DAWSON vs. O. A. Stevens and W. j. Phelps
upon a rule to show cause why they should
not be fined and attached for violating an in
junction order of this court In this cause.
The defendants Stevens and Phelps having
fled their written reply, in which they state
that thew have not knowingly or Intentionally
violated any order of this court, and that it
will appear from the report of w. I'll. Marbury,
filed 10 this cause. that the said Marbury was
restrained and epjoined from taking possession
Of the Washington, Alexandria and George
town Railroad by an order OF the Hon. John
c. Underwood. one Of the judges OF the Circuit
Court of the United States, for the State and
District of Virginia, made in suit instituted
in said court in August, 1868, IN which the
Adams Express Company were compalnants,
and W. H. Marbury. Joseph Dawson ana
others, defendants, and which said order at
the same time appointed them the receivers
of said road, and directed them as sucn 10 take
charge of the same which they accordingly
did, and from the date OF said order to the
present time have been In possession OF the
said road in pursuance thereof, and have oper.
ated it as the receivers OF the Circuit Court OF
the United States for the District of Virginia,
and for these reasons they pray that the salo
rule may be discharged.
It appears from the pleadiugs aud proofs IN
this cause that these respondents were the les
SEES of this road from the Directors OF the Com
pany in May, 1866, and as such, by virtue OF
their lease, they entered into the possession OF
the road; that an injunction was obtained, re-
straining them irom operating the road, and
the validity of the lease denied by the Court,
and W. H. Marbury was appointed by this
Court its receiver to take charge OF the road,
until the questions arising 10 the cause were
finally determined. An appeal was taken by.
the respondents to the District Court OF Ap'
peas, aud from thence to the Supreme Court,
in both of which the decision OF this Court was
affirmed. Upon the return OF the ma6da'e OF
the Court of Appeals decree OF this Court In
conformity Herewith was entered, directing
the said Marbury, as Receiver to take charge
of the road. This order was complied with,
and Mr.. Marbury, as Receiver, placed IN pos,
session of the road, under the direction OF
the Court. That officer reported to the Court
that under an order which issued from the
Judge of the Circuit Court OF the United States
for the District of Virginia, the Deputy
Marshal of the United States Tor the
District had taken possession OF the said
Washington, Alexandria and Georgetown Hall
road. with the rolling stock and motive power
belonging to the same, and had turned 1T over
to Oscar A. Stevens and W. j. Phelps, by
virtue of the said order, and without his au-
thorlty or consent. 70
Under these circumstances the counsel tor
the plaintiffs insist that inasmuch as respon-
dents were cognizant Of these proceedings.
being parties thereto, that they are not entitled
TO any protection by virtue Of the order OF the
United States Court, it not being compulsory
upon them, and that consequently they are OBJ
noxous to punishment for their voluntary par
ticpation in the violation of the order This
Court, whilst disposed at all times to vindlcate
its authority, necessary to the administration
of Justice, cannot visit upon these respondents
any punishment, whilst acting in obedience to
the order of Court of general jurisdiction
1t was not for them to judge OF the respective
mower either Of tie Federal or State Courts, or
to determine whether the order appointing
them receivers, and removing the officer OF the
State Court was rightfuly made or otherwise
This would be imposing upon them an exercise
of legal judgment, and holding them response
bic for any error therein.
The Court will, therefore, continue the rule.
until the United States Court shall have acted
upon the subject.
The motion in favor of the rule was argued
by Dulany & Ball, and J. L. Brent, and oppo-
sed by Messrs. Brent & Wattles