Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1874-01-01
Chancellor ROyce's Opinion.

|
Below we give the full opinion of Chan
cellor Royce, given when granting the in
junction prayed for by the Central Vermont
Railroad, restraining the Vermont and
Canada Railroad company from trusteeing
or tying up" the funds of the Central
Vermont. The interest this question ex-
cites throughout the State calls for the pub
LEGATION of the Opinion in full.
The petition alleges that the petitioner is now and
for The last five months has been receiver and man
ager of the Vermont Canada Railroads acting as
such under the orders of the court in the above en-
titled cause, and makes all the proceedings IN said
cause part of the petition: That during said time
it has been operating said roads and the Ogens
burgh & Lake Champlain Railro d and other rail
roads, the use of which was acquired under con-
tract with the Rutland Railroad Company SANCTION
ed and approved by this court as such receiver ana
manager. That in the usual course OF railroad bust
ness, large balances due the petitioner from the
earnings of the roads under its management, accu
mulate in the hands of the Boston Lowell RAFT
road Company, the Fitchburgh Railroad Company
the Cheshire Railroad Company, the Boston "
Maine Railroad Company-all corporations existing
under the laws of Massachusetts and having their
places of business in Boston-and the Northern
Railroad Company of New Hampshire and George
Stark of Boston That in the usual course oil bust
ness such balances should be adjusted and paid
monthly and that at the time of the preferrinS OF
this petition and the service of the writ herein
after mentioned there were large balances due from
the said corporations and the said stark TO The petl
tioLer, as such receiver and manager, arising from
7 the earnings of the roads and property under It's
man agement.
That on the 2sth day of November, 1873 the Yer
mont & Canada Railroad Company sued out its writ
OF summons and attachment against John Gregory
smith, WorthnSton Z. smith, Dpth OF 81. Aio.ths
Vermont, and Joseph Clark, of Milton, Vermont, as
they jointly the trustees under certain linden
ture of mortgage made by the Vermont Central Rail
road Company. ted October 10Th, 1881 and assign
from said company of Its lease of the railroad
of the Vermont Canada Railroad Company, made
returnabe before the superior Court, to be holden
at boston. Mass. Oh the first Tuesday of January,
1874, ueman ding in damages $3.50 600, and by said
writ summoned as trustees of the defendants there
in, the above named corporations and the said
George stark And in SAID petition charging that
said suit was instituted for the purpose of locking
up said funds in the hands of the trustees, who are
in doubt whether they can safely pay SAID balances
to The petitioner And that the action of the Yer
mont and Canada Railroad Company IN sunmonlng
said corporations and said Stark as trustees, causes
the petitioner great embarrassment in the execution
of its duties as such receiver and manager; Anu
PRAYING that the Vermont & Canada Railroad Com
pany might be enjoined from the further prosecu'
lion of said suit against the corporations and in
dividuals summoned as trustees, and that II mlghl
be ordered aud directed TO discharge said trustees
and release its attachment OF all funds IN The hands
of said trustees. which accrued from the earnings
and income of the roads and property under The
management OF the petitioner, and Tor such othei
relief as equity might appeTtan.
1t appeared upon the hearing that the petitioner
was annointed receiver and manager of the roads
described IN the petition on the 2lst day of June
1873; that the first day OF July, 1913, 1t took pos
session of said roads aDd had been running and
cciyer and manager, ever since; that the petitioner
notified the said corporations and the SAID stark
summoned as Trustees IN the aforesaid SUIT OF lt'
appointment and that all the funds IN The hands o.
the supposed trustees had accumulated since tht
receipt by them of said notice, and were due anC
payable to the petitioner as such receiver ahC
manager.
f 1t further appeared that the Vermont and Canads
Railroad Company was chartered by the LeSsla
ture OF this State: that its railroad is within thl:
State that three of the directors OF SAID com
pany and its clerk were residents of this State ant
CHI tfpF al
Office of clerk OF the corporation shall be Kept II
this state. And il appeared that there was due tC
the petitioner from the supposed trustees, al Inc
lime thev were summoned as such trustees the sun
of 2S5 all of which sum, except about 100000
was due from the petitioner to connecting roads
That in consequence Of being summoned as afore-
said, said refused to pay over the balances
due to the petitioner, and hence the petitioner was
unable TO meet It's Obligations 10 connecting ROADS
and other Obligations which II was under as sucl
receiver and manager, and had been put 10 grea
trouble and expense in procuring means with which
TO meet the neccSsar expenses OF operating saIo
roads; and thai the only means 1t had Tor paying
saiJ onerot,ncr EXPENSES were from the income %
said roads, 4 large portion of which lncon wa
collected from said corporations and sand stark
summoned as trustees. That under the system o
doing u>iness upon The roads under the manage
ment OF the pet toner, and other roads with whom
the petitioner has business connections the corpOr
alton delivernghe freight collect the entire charge,
for transp taton and divides the same between
the roads over which It has been transported; and
that it is necessary to profitable use OF inc roads
under the manageme9 t of the petitioner tAat ms
system should be continued.
These were the material facts upon which the pc
titioner prediced right 10 the rellet prayed fOi
The pettionee claimed that the petitioner was not
entitled to relief, for the following reasons =
FIRST The uetitonee denies that the petitioner Is
a duly organized corporation pursuant 10 lis char
ter, if duly organized II i competent 10 be
i receiver in said cause
subject matter of This objection. except tue record
above referred to. amt when panty produces the
proper record evidence OF his ann lutment that evI
dence is conclusive Of his right unil II IS mpetched
And It has been ucld that II was mn3tcrlai that the
order APP oining receiver Is erroneous or Improp-
er. or ought not To have been maoe-wllile II Is a
subsistng order 1t Is not competent tor any one T.
interfere with the possession OF rue receiver I'd II
Il patty feels a-Ereved by The or!er OF courtk,sak-
ing the appointment he must in> tltute propc \5o-
ccedngs to test its validity.
Russa1 rs East Anglican Railway Company 81 Man and
G III; Ames y. Birkelhead Docks, 10Th Beav- So
Second: That the petitioner had no legal right
under appointment TO take possession OF the pc
titionce's properly.
The objection involves mixed question of law
and fact, and upon the question OF TACT II Is enough
to say that 1t appeared by the order appointing the
petitioner receiver and manager that 1t was directed
to take possession OF tins pr pcrty. The question
of law involved has already been sufh ienty an
Third: That these proceedings are inf nal and
invalid
The scope AMI object of this petition j. to invoke
the 1id OF the court protect its own officer IN Tho
possession OF property which II has been ordered t.
lake, IN pending cause, and Il Is competent T.
grant such aid upon motion OF petition. The pro
ccedings ordinarily must DO specify and summary
be beneficial, and II the party was required TO iilt
such delay would defeat the very purpose ~ view
And | might aid that since the decree of Isl
wherein 1t order cd that thls cause should b,
continued ON the docket, with leave to all The
parIe to the TO apply to The court for further
! orders in the premises, 1t has been The uniform
practice for all having any legal relation To- or IN
terest, in the subject matter OF the cruse TO appl,
to the Court IN Tie same manner That the peliilone
has applied
Fourth That if the fund. in the hands of tn,
parties summoned trustees belong to the petl
toner has the right, under The laws of Massachu
I IN
other proceedings under the laws Of that state, "
6 determine its right. This objection Is pIedicate
upon the well known rule OF equity law, that Court
: of Equity will not len their and 10 party who hl
a full and adequate remedy at law, and a Court q
Law is capable of affordiug sufficient edress- Bu
to bring the petitioner within that rule and preclud
i him from equ abe relief, 1t must appear that Tn
: lcmedy at law IS adequate and that the ree1 n
could obtain in a Court of law would be sufficient
think the Court OF Law TO which the petltIonee hi,
referred the petitioner Is unable to furnish the re
lief 10 which the petitioner Is entitled and that tn
petitioner comes within an exception to the genera
rule which Is as well understood rs the rule itst
1hereasons for this belief Will be more fully state
hereafter.
This disposes of the special reasons which hav
been urged by the pettiOncc against the granting
the prayer OF the petitioner But the general denl;
by the petitioncc oil the right of the petitioner to IN
relief prayed for involves the ga son of the riEt
c or power of the Court - grant II. The right OF
Court of Equity to restrain parties resident In En-;
land from prosecution OF suits in tol eIgn couI
tries was recognized more than two hundred yeaI
ago by the highest judicial tribunal OF that country
!, and well established there as any olher Pm
:, ciple of equity law.
Toler vs. Carteret u Nern-. i9i Penn v Lord Bait
l. more YES Sen. Wharton May Yes II; Bushh
VS. Munday Mad, Lord PoTtarlington S0ulhy,
NJ and R. lOI: McLaran Stanton, Il Law and Equi
500; Beauchanp Marquis OF Iiuntley, r. and NJ 259
L The right is not grounded upon the pretension I
the exercise of judicial and administrative right
abroad, but upon The fact of the party upon whoi
t the order is maize being within the jurisdiction
the Court. And while the courts OF one coantr
have no authority exercise any control over ID
y courts of another country, they have authoilt
where the parties resident within their Jur's I'
@ ton to act in personGm upon them and direct lhel
by injunction To proceed no further. This Is III
y rule in the United states courts,
Howard rs;
And most if not all the States.
Sorys Equity Jurisprudence, Sec ca and note DehC
Foster and others 18th Allen SAL Great Fa
u Manufacturing Company Wooster % y H. 462 land
recognized in State in Bank of Bellows Falls Y