The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-12-20
PRICE THREE CENTS.

Tredett rs. Armstrong, Keen, 42s owen w.
Homan. I II. l.. 1884,
And where a receiver is required for the
above purpose and for the purpose of carry
ing on, or experimenting trade or bust
ager, or receiver and manager. and
his appointment as manager implies
that he has power to deal with the
property over which he is appointed And
both are the servants and officers of the
court, and entitled to its protection while
in the proper discharge of their duty.
When the court has appointed a receiver
or manager, his possession is the possession
OF the court, for the benefit OF the parties
to the suit and may not I've disturbed with.
out the leave of the court. And if any per-
son, whoever he be, disturbs the possession
OF The receiver or manager, that person Is
held guilty of contempt Of court ard
liable to be imprisoned for such contempt.
=, Angel vs. smith, 9th YES. 335 Hutchinson vs..
Masaerene, "a Ba. Be. IS Ames VS.. Brinken-
head Docks, goth Beav 1853 Clark vs. ijeninger
gun Am. Law Reg N. $. S4 Watkins vs.. Pin
key, Sd Edw. c. r. 1913.
II any person claims right paramount
to the right of a receiver or manager. he
must. before he picsumcs to take any stems
of his own motion. apply to the court for
leave to assert his right against the ic-
cciver o: manager
Hawkins VS. Guthercolc LIST DrcWr, IL; Rand
acid -. Randiled, lst Dr. & SIN. al4
This rule is not confined to property act
TALLY in the hands of the receiver or mar.
ager. The court will not permit any one
without its sanction and authority to inter-
rupt or prevent payment for any property
which he has been appointed to receive,
though it may not be actually in his hand-
Ames vs.. Brlnkenhead Docks, goth Bcav. 35s
The necessity for this rule is obvious
for if a party to the suit can wrcst the DOS.
session of the property from the receiver or
manager. he may in this way defect the
purpose of the appointment. The pctitionrc
We I'D not have been permitted to attach
the funds of the petitioner in the courts of
this state, and he can obtain no superior
equity in the courts of another state. AMI
it is competent for this court to restrain, BY
injunction, parties within its jurisdiction
from doing those acts in another state
which would subject them to that process
if done here. 1t was clearly competent
for the petiticnee to have shown that the
funds attached by it were subject to the
legal debts of the defendants in that suit,
but no evidence tending to show that fact
was introduced. and as the case was made
mp, there is no question to litigatc in that
suit as to who is entitled to those funds.
Under such circumstances and with such
important interests involved, the admins
tration of justice would be defective if it
compelled the petitioner to await the re-
suit Of that suit, before it could be in 20
sition to assert its legal right to those funds
From the facts found and the law appli.
cable to them, it seems to me that this is
proper case for the exercise of the rlght
above referred to, and that the prayer OF
the petition ought to be granted, and that
t,,t, Oh,
petitiOnee from the further prosecution of
said suit as against the corporations and the
said Stark. summoned as trustees, and that
within a time to be named in the same,
they be ordered to release and discharge in
writing said corporations and said Stark.
summoned as trustees, and each of them
from all claim which they have on said
funds by reason of the service of said trus-
tee process, and to effectually discharge
said corporations and said Stark. summon
ed rs trustees, ana each or IueIn, rion, oil
liability to answer in said suit for any of
the funds which were in their hands at the
time of the service of said trustee process
upon them, or which have come into their
hands since the service of the same, arising,
or which may have arisen from the earn
ings of the railroads or property under the
management of the petitioner as such re
ttlNtl utlAl as wen Us al
arising, or which may have arisen. from
the business passing over said roads, com
ing from connecting roads.
Under the prayer for further relief, the
petitioner claims that it is entitled to an or
der prohibiting the petitonee from inter.
ferng in any manner to prevent the pay
ment to the petitioner, by the parties from
whom the same may become due and pay
able, of any funds hereafter arising from
the earnings of the railroads under its MAIL
agement as receiver and manager
BY the order appointing it receiver and
manager, the petitioner was directed to
run, operate and manage" said rai!IoaCs.
subject to and under the DEGREES and orders
which had been made in the cause and sub
ject to the further orders and directions of
The court. As long as this duty is required
Of the petitioner, it is clearly the dniy Of
court to furnish the petitioner. if within
his power, the necessary aid and protection
in its performance OF that duty. The pow
cr 10 fulfill its duty depends upon the pow
er of the petitioner To control the income
and earnings of the roads, and, in view of
the attempt which has been made to divest
them Of such control and the Disastrous
consequences which must result To the
trust property if such attempts are TO he
repeated, the pettionee will he enjoinrd
from doing or emitting To do. directly or
indirectly. by suit or otherwise. any act or
thjnr IN ureyent or imnede fine unyment of
all or any funds which may hereafter no.
crrc in the hands of any coronation or
nerson whatever. arising from the earn.
inrs of the railroads under the management
nj tho rriitioner as such receiver AMI man.
a,cr.
There is another reason which. in my
Judgment, makes the interference OF the
court proper upon this petition. The petit
tionee is orator in the cause. and the pro-
perty passed into the hands of receivers
upon its application. and is being admins
tered in that cause for the benefit of those
entitle1 ~ the nroperty in rrnportion 10
their respective RIGHTS in the same II
-, ~ ;oo,,;,aIfo "a ,,o.,,i, ,r,. an,