Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1873-03-26

db ali tlLbco w ODICCt w any pdII vi ehO
accounts of said trustees and receivers before
1be same shall have been passed upon by the
Court" Now, until these accounts were
fled in the Court of Chancery, there was no
opportunity for these parties to object to any
portion of these accounts, because they were
not supposed to know how the receivers and
managers claimed that the account stood. We
think it was plain duty upon the part of
the receivers and managers to have settled
these accounts annually, and that they ehould
be settled now, and the question comes
whether We have the power under this petit
ton to order that these accounts shall be
settled. There is no prayer in the petition
that they shall be settled, but as the case is
made up and comes here, we have no doubt
but that We have the power to make such
an order at this time upon these petitions,
and we shall make such an order, that these
receivers and managers settle their account
with the Court of Chancery.
Well, now, there are very many questions
that have been very deliberately and learned
~ discussed that we do not feel called upon
TO decide we do not regard it as matter of
duty, and do not think that the case demands
it such questions as the priority of these
liens and the order of payment. 1t claim
ed on the part of the petitioners that the
rights of the lessons under these Ogdensburg
and Rutland leases should be postponed to
their claim for this rent. Well, if they
should be postponed, it is very evident to US
that the Ogdensburg Railroad Company and
the Rutland Railroad Company should be
made parties to tue proceeding.
1t would be a novelty TO make an order
which is treated by the counsel here as an
0rGer that would be fnal-that operated to
postpone the payment of the rent of those
TWO roads without making them parties to
the proceeding, or giving them an oppOrtu-
nifty TO be heard. We do not regard it as
necessary to decide that When these accounts
are settled they are filed in the Court Of
Clancery, and the Chancellor is put into
possession of all the facts 50 he can act ac-
coIdIngly, and then the order in which these
payments should be made can be defined
fixed and settled and 1t should be done in
such a way, in a matter of this importance,
that the opinion of the Supreme Court may
he lad Upon this question by either party IT
they desire 1t. 50 that We should make no
order, under this petition at this time, upon
the receivers and managers to pay this rent
II such an order should be made, it mil ht
leave the receivers and managers in this posi-
ton -; if the Court proceeded here and made
an order upon them to pay this Sl2O,O00,
and tie interest upon it by certain time,
and they neglected to pay it. they might be
| proceeded against for contempt for disobey-
| 10 an order of the Chancellor; they might
| be compelled to pay lift they did not pay
It Voluntarily. When the money is paid to
! the Vermont aud Canada road, it is DISTURBED
| to tie parties who are entitled to it, and goes
out OF the possession of that road as a cor
| pOratlOn. 1t the Supreme Court should final
! ly, upon the settlement of these accounts, de-
termlnc that the receivers and managers were
justified IN paying out the money, just
as they claim they have expended il, II
would leave these receivers and mana Ier,
| where the law never contemplated they would
ue left. This question OF the priority OF the
rights Of these parties to this rust money
which comes into their hands should be de-
t-rnined in the first instance, in my judg
mept, before any order is made where there
are any conflicting interests and, in thai
Few uI he case, we should feel disposed t
order these accounts to be settled, and Ii
ref renee to the form of that order or to the
time 10 which the receivers and manager.
! shall be allowed to file those accounts, anC
rs TO the time for excepting to the accounts
if the counsel do not agree, we would heal
t en- il regard to these exceptions.
Now in reference to the other petitions
They pray TOR the removal of these receiver,
and managers, and one or both of then
pray that they may be ordered TO settle then
account As far as this prayer in thos'
peti ions is concerned, the latter prayer il
answered by the order we make IN this
Shall we retain the petitions-ailow them tt
remain in this court-upon the other brancl
Of the petitions Ordinarily when party
files a petition in the Curt Of Chancery, b,
has the right 10 have it retained there unit
1t IS finally judcially determined; but it il
the duty of the Court of Chancery to see tt
it that there is no detriment to the trus
property that can be avoided.
Now, it is claimed on the part Of the re
ceivers and managers that, permitting thes
petitions to be here in this court embarrasse
the receivers and managers in the discharg
} Of their duties; it embarrasses them in ne
gotiating the securities which are entrusted
to them to dispose of for the purpose of Car
rying on and managing this property. [
this be true the petition should not be re
tanned here, unless the retention is necessar,
for the purpose of protecting or saving som,
right to the petitioners. As | understand
the law, upon the coming in Of the accounts
and the settlement of them, if the Chancelio
= shall find that these men have conductei
themselves in such manner that they shoul(
} be removed, why, they would be removed
Il they can be removed upon motion, an(
even IL it should be necessary for them t
file petition as in these cases, all the par
ties would have to do would be to file peti
ton. The prayer for removal under such
state of circumstances would contain differ
ent allegations from those contained in thes
petitions; and it would be based upon some
thing that is to transplre in the future il
connection with those accounts, so, if thu
petitions were retained in court. it would b.
Of 10 benefit to the party unless the peti
tions should be amended, and it seems to m;
it would be no inconvenience to the parties
and it certainly is of no particular harm t,
these parties that these petitions should lii
here in court. Hence we have concluded
that in reference to these two petitions W,
should either dismiss them without preiudic
to the petitioners, or permit them to with
draw them as they may choose. This, il
short, gentlemen, is the result to which WI
have come in the matter, and s before re
marked, there are many questions very learn
edly and eiab0rately discussed here, that W,
do not feel at liberty to decide upon this ap
pllcatlop, such as the rights and duties 0
these receivers and managers. Those ques
tions all come up in the settlement of thei
accounts, and we might only PREJUDICE tn
matter by giving any opinion upon that sub
: ject upon this occasion, and we do not fee
that the case calls for it.
will now refer to MIR. Davenport's mo
ton, that this matter should be in the frs
instance REFER ed to one or more masters.
90 not understand ordinarily that when re
ceivers are required to file and settle the
accounts. that it is customary in the first in
stance to refer the matter to MASTER tina
the course of proceeding is for them to FL,
the account in the Court OF Chancery, anC
then any party interested in the subject mat
ter has given time in which to file excep
tions to that account, and then the Who'll,
subject may 90 to a master; that is, the
items of the account to which exceptions are
taken may be referred to the master, witt
instructions to renOrt all the facts connectec