Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1873-12-26


resident within their jurisdiction to act ~
persoRam upon them, and direct them by
Injunction to proceed no further. This Is
the rule in the United States courts.
% Howard %; and in most, &c not all, Of tA,
1 States.
. s.or, Equity Jurisprudence. See. s99 and note
| High ON Inunctions Soc. 6O and motto Dehon and
others foster and others, 9TH Allen, 81 treat
Falls Manufacturing Company VS.. worster 3 N. II
fd9 aul Is recognized in our own State in Bank OF
/ Bellows Fall ". Rutland and Burlington Railroad
Company and others, 18th Vt, i'h.
The right being established, it remains to
be considered whether this Is 4 proper case
for its exercise. \ receiver Is Indifferent
between the parties and Is appointed by
the Court to collect the rents, issues and
profits OF land or the produce of personal
estate OF other things in question pending
the suit-which it does not seem reasonable
to the Court that either party should do
for the purpose of getting in and securing
funds which the Court, at the hearing OF IN
the course of the cause, will have the means
of distributing among the parties entitled
thereto. lie owes an equal duty to all alike
and is responsible to the Court alone
Dan Oh. Pr. l552; Evans vs.. Coventry 3 Drove,
! sl; Booth V. Clark, l. Howard, 35l; Libby vs..
Rosekrans, 50 Barb. aD1i Baker Backus % H. -
And the object sought by the appointment
may be generally described to be, to provide
for the safety of property pending the
legation which Is To decide the righ hts OF
litigant parties.
Tredctt vs.. Armstrong, Keen, ~ Owen vs..
lloman, II. L. 1852.
And where receiver is required for the
above purpose and for the purpose Of carry
ing on, or experimenting a trade or
business, he is usually called manager, or
receiver and manager, and his appointment
As manager implies that he has power to
deal with the property over which he is ap-
pointed. And both are the servants and
officers of the court, and entitled to its pro-
lection while in the proper discharge Of
their duty.
When the Court has appointed receiver
or manager, his possession is the possession
of the Court, for the benefit of the parties
to the suit, and may not be disturbed with
out the leave of .he Court. And if any
| person, whoever he be, disturbs the posses
sion OF the receiver or manager, that person
is held guilty of a contempt of Court and
liable to be imprisoned for such contempt
Angel rs. Smith, 9th YES. 3}5; Hutchinson vs..
! Massereeuc, "a Ba. a Be. 50; Amcs vs.. Brinkon-
head Docks. 4)th BcaF. 353; CLARK " Beninger,
| Sta An. Law Reg. y. :. 5il; Watkins rs. Pinkucy,
| ID tdw. c. u. '3i
! Ii any person claims right paramount
to the right Of receiver or manager he
must, before be presumeS to take any steps
Of his own motion, apply to the Court for
| leave to assert his right against the receiver
OF manager.
Hawkins Is. Guthercole, LIST Drewc. q RaudfclG
! rs. Randied st Dr. Il SIN. 3i.
This rule i not confined to property
actually in the hands of the receiver or
manager. The Court will not permit any
one without its sanction and authority to
| interrupt or prevent payment for any
| property which he has been appointed to
receive, though it may not be actually in
| his hands
Ames vs.. Brinkcnhead Docks goth Beav. 1853.
The necessity for this rule is obvious: for
| if party to the suit can wrest the posses
sion Of the property from the receiver or
manager, he may in this way defeat the
| purpose of the appointment. The peti-
tiOnee would 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. And it is competent for this Court
to restrain. by injunction. parties within
it, jurisdiction from doing those acts in
another State which would subject them to
that process if done here. 1t was clearly
competent for the petitionee 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 litigate in
that suit a. to who is entitled 10 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
result of that suit, before it could be
IN - l,fr L..
to those funds. From the facts found
and the law applicable to them it seems
to me, that this i proper case
for the exercise of the right above referred
to and that the prayer Of the petition Ought
to be granted and that an injunction should
issue restraining the petiuOnee from the
further prosecution of said suit as against
the corporations and the said Stark, sum
mOned A. trustees, and that within time to |
be named in the same, they be ordered to re-
lease and discharge in writing said corpor
ations and said Stark, summoned as trus-
tees, and each of them from all cain which |
they have on said funds by reason of the |
service of said trustee process, and to efiec |
tpnlly discharge said corporations and said |
Stark, summoned as trustees, and each OF |
them, from all 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 4
arisen from the earnings of the railroads or
property under the management of the pc
iitoner as such receiver and manager. as
well as all earnings arising or which may
have arisen from the business passing over
said roads coming from connecting roads.
Under the prayer for further relief, the
petitioner claims that it Is entitled to an
order prohibiting the petitionee from inter-
iering in any manner TO prevent the pay
mont 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 man
agcment "a receiver and manager.
BY the order appointing it receiver and
manager, the petitioner was directed to
" run, operate and manage" said railroads,
subject to and under the DEGREES and or
ders which had been made in the cause.
and subject to the further orders and direc-
tons of the court. As long as this duty is
required Of the petitioner, it is clearly the
duty of the court to furnish the petitioner,
if within ITS power. the necessary aid and
protection in its performance Of that duty.
The power to fulfil its duty depends upon
the power of the petitioner to control the
income and earnings of the roads, and, in
view of the attempt which has been made to
tiyest them Of such control and the disas-
trous consequences which must result to the
trust property if such attempts are to be
repeated, the petitionee will be enjOined
rom doing or emitting to do, directly or {
indirectly, BY suit or otherwise, any act or
hing to prevent or impede the payment of
III or any funds which may hereafter accrue
n the hands of any corporation or person
v whatsoever, arising from the earnings of
he railroads under the management Of
he petitioner as such receiver and man
lger. /
There is another reason which, in my
Judgment, makes the interference of the I
'ourt proper upon this petition. The petit I
lonee Is orator in the cause, and the pro- I
lerty passed into the hands of receivers a
ipon its application, and is being admins 1
cred in that cause for the benefit of those a
Untitled to the property in proportion to i
heir respective rights in the same. 1t would c
&c inequitable to permit any one party to q
'btaln preference in any manner over the t
'thers,or withdraw for their own benefit any
PORTION OF the fund which should be paid i
ntO court and distributed according to !
he equitable rights of the parties en- t
titled. a
have deemed this proper occasion on a
which to define the legal relations which t
he petitionee and parties to this cause T
ustain to this trust property, and in doing |
q have sought to avoid the introduc- |
ion of my " new or strange doctrine o
'ut rather to apply the authoritative prin- c
iples of Equity Law. The consideration of a
he subject matter of the petition does not h
emand any expression of approval or dis r
pproyal Of the manner in which the pc
itioner or its predecessors in Office have o
discharged their duty. That remains to be {
determined. Neither is it competent on a
his hearing to modify or change any pre- $
ious orders in relation to any funds which t
he petitioner has or may receive, growing 0
ut OF the trust property, but while this a
ause remains in court and the court is y
harged with the administration of this e.
roperty, the servants and officers of the p