Lamoille newsdealer. [volume] (Hyde Park, Vt.) 1860-1877, 1873-03-26


euntsmpi for disObeying On order oi 'h'
Chancellor; they might BE- compelled ''
pay il Il they DID not pay il voluntarily.
New. 10 refereuoe TO ihese other peii'
iions They pay for the removal Of 'he''
receivers aud nanagcr,. ari one or both
Of them pray that they may be ordered ID
settle their accounts. A. far - this lat
ter prayer 10 iho-e petitions iseaneer ned-
il Is answered by the other NC make u
this. Shall We retain the petitions a.
low them TO remain in eourt1 upon the
other branch Of the petition. : Oriina'
rily. when party files a petition in the
Court Of Chlnccry he has ihe right TO le'
/ it remain there uutil il Is iaally judieiaiiy
determined. but it Is the duty Of the
Court OF Cha merry TO see TO it that there
is TO deirimeut 10 the trust property, that
can be avoided.
Now il is claimed upon the part Of re-
ccivcrs aud managers that permitting
these petitions to lie here in this court eui'
barras~cs the receivers aud managers in
discharge Of their duty, that it embar-
raises them in negotiating the securities
that are entrusted to ihem TO dispose OF
for t he purpose Of CARRYING on aad man
ageing this property. Well now il ihi'
b, true, the petition should not be retain
ell here, unless the retention is neecssary
for the purpose of protecting or saving
some right TO the petitioners A. | uR-
dersiand the law, upon the coming in Of
these accounts, and settlement Of them,
If the Chancellor shall find that these men
have conducted themselves IN such a man
ner that they should be removed, why,
they coRli be removed. an they can be
removed upon motion ; and even if it
should be necessary to file petition, a.
in these eases. why. all the parties would
have to do would be TO file petition.
The prayer for removal under such n
state Of circumstances would contain
different allegations from those contained
in these petitions; il would be based up.
on something that is to transpre in The fu-
turc in connection with those accounts, so
It the petition were retained in court, j,
would be of no benefit TO the party unless
the petitions should be amended and il
seems TO me it would be no Inconvenience
to the partics-and is Of no par leu ar
harm to these pariies-tbut these pe'l
tions should not lie hc.e in court. Hence
we have cutltf,d that in reference to
these two petitions we should either dis.
miss them without prejulico 10 the pcti.
TONERS, or permit them to Withdraw them
as they may choose.
will now refer to Mr.. Darcnror's
motion, that this matter shonld he in the
first Instance referred to one or more mas
tiers. do not understand, ordinarily.
that when receivers are required to file
aud settle their accounts that it is custo.
mary in the first instance to refer the
master 10 master; hut the course Of
proceeding Is for them TO flo their ac-
count in the court and then any party.n-
ierested in the subject matter has given
time in which 10 file exceptions 10 that
account, aud then the whole subject may
so To u master that is. the items Of the
account to which exceptions are taken
may be referred to the master with in.
struciions to report the facts connected
with the disputed items.
The motion of Mr.. Davenport, az un.
derstood it, requested that the Chancellor
would direct that this master examine in
to the connection Of these receivers aud
managers with the Sullivan Railroad and
the Montreal and Vermont Junction Rail-
road. We have no right to assume in the
first instance but what these receivers aud
managers in settling their accounts, will
do all that The law requires them TO do,
au,l il may be that when that account
comes into the Court of Chancery. that
every subject matter about which these
gentlemen desire an accounting taken will
be embraced and fully stated by The re-
ceivers and managers. and they Of course
understand that in the settlement Of these
accounts, that they are required not only
to state results, hut to give the evidence
by which those results ere attained The
account must be sufficiently specific so that
every body can understand how the result
is arrived at
Nov, my Judgment is, of these receiv
ers and managers; upon fling their ac-
counts with the Court OF Chancery, should
omit TO Gle any accounts which parties in.
terestcd in this property think they should
file an account concerning that it is then
competent for such parties to apply to the
chancellor, and upon the proper represent
alton Of such fact, he will make such or
der in the premises as he shall think is re-.
a,;,aJ t. "a 70. 49,. ..a.... Al