Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1873-03-28


n pay. A..
That is the prominent question that
presented in the case, as 1t l. made OUT
seems to us we can make no such order un
til we are put into possession OF tee iacts
and the whole facts, connected with thSs
o accounts, and hence we believe that III
e trustees and managers should settle tnei
: accounst By the decree of lS6i-and 1t
/ conceded on the part of the petitioner tina
this decree is one that is Of binding obllga
: ton upon the parties to it-these receiver
D and managers were required annually to re
port to the Court of Chaneery and their ac
counts were to be settled. Ii appears tina
} these accounts have not been settled by the
: Court of Chancery since 1867; no account,
have been settled, in fact, since 1866. AND
we do not think that there has been any
reasonable excuse given for this neglect
upon the part of the receivers and managers
in not settling this account.
1t is true, it is claimed, that these audit
ors, however constituted by this decree
this advisory committee who were consti-
tuted auditOrs-had had access to those ac-
counts. and had passed upon them, and that
they supposed that that answered all that
was required of them under this decree. But
in the decree ION the I6lst page) 1t IS pro-
vided that 1.-The trustees of the second mort
gage bOndholders, of said Vermont Central
Railroad Company, shall have the right, at
all times, to object to any part OF the ac-
counts of said trustees and receivers, before
the same shall have been passed upon by the
court" Now, until these accounts were
filed in the Court Of Chancery, there was no
| opportunity for these parties to object
to any portion of them because they
were not supposed to know how the receiv-
ers and managers claimed that the account
! III - .1osv .U.rfr-
| the part of these receivers and managers to
! have followed the decree in this particular
and to have settled these accounts annually.
and that they should be settled now. and the
| question comes whether we have the power
under this petition to order that these ac-
counts 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 que~-
tiOns that have been very deliberately and
learnedly discussed, that We do not feel
called upon 70 decide; we do not regard it
rs a matter of duty and do not think that
the case demands it such questions As the
priority of these liens, and the order Ofpay-
ment. 1t Is claimed upon 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. If they should he postponed it |
Is very evident to Us that the Ogdensburg /
Railroad Company and the Rutland Railroad I
Company, should be made parties to this
proceeding 1t would be a novelty to make
m RrfIa hf.b Il h. 81. al
here as an order that would be final-that
operated to postpone the payment ofthe rent
Of those two roads-without making them
parties TO the proceeding, OF giving them
an opportunity to be heard. We do not re-
gard 1t a necessary to decide that.
W hen these accounts are settled they are
filed in the Court Of Chancery and the Chan
cell0r Is put in possession Of all the facts. So
he can act Understandings, and then the
order IN which these payments should be-
made can be defined, fixed and settled and
1t should be done in such way. in a mat
ter OF this importance, that the opinion of
the supreme court may be had upon this
question by either party if they desire it,
50 that we should make no order. under
this petition, at this time. upon the receiy-
srS and managers to pay this rent. If such
IN order should be made it might leave the ?
receivers and managers in this position If
he court proceeded here and made an order q
ipon them to pay this SEQ, 900 and the in D
crest upon 1t by certain time. and they d
neglected to pay it, they might be proceed b
d against for contempt for disobeying an
rider Of the Chancellor. they might be com I
'e-ied to pay 1t If they did not pay it y0lun- n
adly. =
When the money is paid to the Vermont
{ canada road IL i disburSed to the uartic- -
gho are entitled to it and goes out of the r
osSesSl0n OF that road As n corporation II
he supreme Court should finally. upon the
attlement OftheSe accounts, determine that l ir
he receivers and managers were justified In p'
aging out the money Just a. they claim ! IT
ley have expended It, why, it would leave III
iese receivers and managers where the law eA
ever contemplated they shouldbe left. The pt
uestlon Of the priority Of the rights of ei
iese parties TO this trust money which Ia
lmes INTO their hands, should be deternin- an
IN the first Instance, in my Judgment. be- m
re any order Is made where there are %
ny conflicting interests And in that no
ew Of the case, we should feel disposed In
der these accounts to be settled, and in ci
ference to the form of that order. or to the "
me IN which the receivers and managers
all be allowed to file those accounts. and p.
to the time for excepting to the accounts. ~
the counsel do not agree, We would hear -
EN- in regard to those questions. 80
Now. IN reference to these other reti- ~,
ms They pray for the removal Of these ~
'eiyers add managers. and one or both Of 80
EN- pray that they may be ordered 10 set
their accounts A. far as this latter
aver IN those petitions Is concerned.
i answered by the order We make Co
this. Shall we retain the petitions AL +b.
them to remain in COURT upon the r.
Ter branch of the petitions? Ordinarily Hlu
en- a party files petition in the Court Of ALI
ancery he has the right to let 1t remain tax
re until 1t Is finally judicially determined. J,,
II Is the duty OF the Court of Chancery
see to 1t that there Is no detriment To the IN
St property, that can be avoided. Ca
Vow 1t Is claimed upon the part of the inst
eiyers and managers that permitting
sc petitions to lie here in this court en- Wo'
raSseS the receivers and managers in the vi
charge Of their duty that it embar- UNI
Sc them IN negotiating the securities u
are entrusted to them to dispose of for Spe'
purpose OF carrying on and MANAGING peg
property. Well, now. if this he frue hel'
petition should not be retained here. nm hea
the retention i necessary for the mr. S I,
OF protecting or saving some right +, ~ II
pelltl0ners. ~ | understand the law '1H
Il the coming in Of these accounts. and / Spe'
settlement Of them ,ifthe Chancellor Shall pre-
that these men have conducted them. sh9l
Is IN such manner that they should be lhut
owed, why, they icouid be removed. and rePi
can be removed upon motion and anu
II 1t should be necessary To fle ne
etItlon, as in these cases, why. all Sch
parties would have to do would be to I.lC' (
l petition mad
ne prayer for removal under such n state foot
would contain different aict
,ations from those contained il these drew
lions II would be based upon some thar
mat l. to transpire in the future in inor
lection with those accounts. 50 if the h. D
ton were retained in court. il wonIj he -
l, neneht to the party unless the petitions the
ia be amended and it seems to me IL nIiel
~ De no inconvenience to the parties stor,
II certainly Is OF no particular harm 10 with
partles-that these petitions should cam,
le mere IN court. Hence we have concluded the
IN reference to these two petitions we o.
Id either dismiss them without prejudice cbar,
c petitioners, or permit them 10 with that
them as they may choose. Iii I
rs, IN short, gentlemen, Is the result Ia D,iqb
n we nave come in the matter. Is diT i
- r''i,', NJ ther9 are many ques- inall
4 bor, i III. anu eiaDorately dis Senat
lty to decide upon in this application WI
as the rights and duties of tbese Vii,
'ers and managers. Those questions citem
'me up IN the settlement of their ac- ~"
IS and we might only PREJUDICE the a, ph
II by giving any opinion upon that oner'
&C upon this occasion and we do NOT l'II y,
hat the case calls for il. Re'
Ill nov refer to Mr. Dayenport's mo- t i,,' +
that this matter should be in the first M.
ice referred to one or more masters ,;a ~ =
It understand, ordinarily, that when lie ~
ers are required to file and settle their The h.
nts that 1t customary in the first in No, II
,ursa ~ ,,rooa - 70 +" master but was u
account - H. :, lor theIn TO HE earn,
;ntcTastod :, III ~ our ana then any and &
fine in ,-L;oL lSct matter has nation
HiNh ~ llt exceptions Ia ] hnrvar