The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1873-08-11

ayers on account of alleged frauds and pc
culations, Encouragement and misappro-
pration of the funds and property of the
trust. After some delays by request, of
parties, these three petitions came on for
hearing, all together, on the 18th day of
March, 1878, before chancellors Royce and
Redfield, at the court house in st. Adams.
An answer to the petition of the Canada
company for their rent was filed by the re-
ccivers, denying that they had money in |
their possession, and applicable to that |
purpose, sufficient to pay the rent prayed |
for, or any part thereof, or that they had |
improperly expended any of the funds of
the trust. Thus the issue was made up and
the whole matter resolved into question
of what monies had come into the hands of
the receivers, and what, If anything had
been done with them, which question could
only be received through an accounting be-
tween the receivers and the trust estate
That accounting the Court promptly and
in our humble judgment, rightly refused to
sit as court and take, and so the case
ran aground almost at the very moment of
its clumsy launching.
1t is unnecessary for us to attempt sup
port of ruling so manfestly proper that
to tyro in the science of equity and ju-
risprudence, its propriety is self evident.
Courts of Equity never take accounts save
in the form of masters reports, and that
this is wise and necessary rule cannot
for moment be doubted The Court in
this case said to its petitioners 1--WE can
not in equity require our officers to pay
over to YOU money when they say they
have none, and there is but one way to de-
eide whether theyhavc or not, but although
you do not in terms ask it, we will, if you
desire, order these receivers and managers
to file their accounts. If they have money
it will then appear and you can demand its
application to the payment of your claim
If they have had the money but have i'm
property expended it, you have the I'M
doubted right to object to the items of i'm
proper expenditure, be they few or many,
and the Court will adjudicate them ac-
cording to its course And the Vermont
and Canada railroad company, by its Presi-
dent, replied: ave don't want their ac-
counts; we want our rent, and since we
are refused that, we will take nothing. but
will withdraw our petition"
The Vermont and Canada railroad COM
pany and certain of the mortgage bond
holders had filed their several petitions for
the removal of the receivers and managers,
or some of them, for the reason, and for no
other reason substantially, than that they
had Incorporated the funds and pro-
perty of the trust.
Then it was again simple matter of ac-
counting between the receivers and their
trust. Again was the attempt made to in
troducc this accounting in form of evil
dcnce before the chancellors and as before,
it was promptly ruled out One of the
counsel for the bondholders then moved
the Court to appoint master to take the
accounts of the receivers To this the
Court replied: ''Our course is clearly
marked out for us by the decree of 1864.
We will not appoint master to the end.
less and useless task of taking all the &C.
counts of these receivers, but if you desire
it we will order them to file their accounts
in this court in the course prescribed by
that decree, and any items, or the
| absence of any items therein tt
, which you may object, shall be sent to {
master to investigate and report to thi,
court for the adjudication thereof"
, Upon the announcement of this corrup
, and oppressive decision the petitioners ex
pressed in gentlemanly manner their dis
gust and the utter contempt in which they
5 held the court, Indignantly withdrew al
| their petitions and shaking the dust from
t their feet, went out. The reason of thi
persistent refusal of the petitioners to prose
cute their cause in the manner so clearly
r marked out by the decree which they re
S gard as pre-eminently valid and binding, il
mystery which, as it is entirely out o
$ our province, we shall make no attempt t.
2 solve. The fact that while by inuendoes
A and asides they claim the illegally
1 and insufficiency of their representa-
ton in the granting of former orders AM
DEGREES but carefully refrain from takin,
, steps to bring the matter-a very simpl
t one to all appearance-to direct issue i
: equally dark and inexplicable.
The next important move in this caus
t was the application of the receivers an,
5 managers permission to turn over the pro
a perty under their charge as such to new
e receiver, namely the Central Vermont Rail
e road Company, and because of the grantin.
Y of this request the Court of Chancery ~
Y been most tercely attacked by certain o
: the newspapers of this country, and som,
: of the astute wielders of that implement o
warfare which is "mightier than til,
: sword" have managed by course of rcas
oning more profound than either sensibl,
t or logical to drag in and villify the Who'll,
Supreme bench of this state. Let us lool
G at the matter for moment, merely sug
costing in the outset that although tn,
h practice in other states may be, and il
: many instances doubtless is, different, i
r has always been looked upon here as pro
G per for courts to render their decisions
: upon the evidence and arguments brough
1 before them in their judicial capacity only
, Objections were made to this change il
r management by the Vermont and Canadi
/, Railroad Company and by certain bond
e holders, substantially upon the followin.
grounds:
a First-That the Central Vermont Rail
} road Company was not party to this suit
. and that it was improper for the outgoing
e receivers to nominate their successors.
: Second-That they 0he objecting par
t ties) were ready and willing to nominate
I SUCCESSORS to the then incumbents