Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1874-01-01
authority to interrupt or prevent payment for any

authority to interrupt or prevent payment f,r any
property which he has been appointed 10 receive,
though 1t may not be actually in his hands.
Ames VS. Birnkehhead Docks, 10th Beav- SIS.
The necessity for this rule is obvious: for il q
party TO wrest the possession the
property from the receiver or manager, he may in
this way defeat the purpose of the appointment.
The pefitlonee 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 Tn
the Courts of another State. And it is conpeent
for this Court TO restrain, by injunction, parties
within Its jurisdiction from doing those acts in
other State which would subject them to that pro-
cess II done here 1t was cleally competent for the
petltlOnee to have shown that the funds attached
by were subject 10 the legal debts of the def nd
ants IN that SUIT but no evidence tending to show
that fact was introduced and as the was made
up there Is no question to litigae in tina: suit to
who is entitled to those tunds
Under such circums tanees and with such impor.
tant interests involved the of Justice
would be defective if it compelled the petitioner TO
await the result OF that suit before it could be In
position to assert Its legal right TO those funds
From the facts found and the law applicable to
mem, 1t seems to me that this is proper for
inc exercise OF the right above referred to and
that the prayer of the petition ought be granted
ana mat an injunction should issue restraining abe
pettonee from The further prosecution said suit
as against the corporations and the said Stark,
summoned as trustees and that within 4 time 10 be
named In the same they be ordered 10 release and
discharge in writing said corporations and said
Stark, summoned trustees, and each of them
from all claim which they have said funds by
reason OF the service of said trustee process, and
to eiectualy discharge said corporations and said
stark, summoned as trustees, and each OF them.
from all liability TO answer SAID suit Tor
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, which have arisen
from the earnings of the railroads or property
under the management of the petitioner 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 order prohibiting
the petitionee from interfering In any man
prevent nefgteDGrs
by the parties from whom the same may become
due and payable of any funds hereafter arising
from the earnings of the railroads under its man
aSement as receiver and manager.
By the order appointing it receiver and manager.
manage said railroads, subject 10 and under the
DEGREES and orders which had beer 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 ii 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 divest them of
such control and the disastrous consequences
which must result to the trust property if such
attempts are to be repeated the liettlonee Will be
ehJoned from doing or emitting % do, directly or
indirectly, by othera iSe any act thing
prevent or impede the payment ni all any fun DIS
WHICH may hereafter accrue the hands of an
corporation person whatsoever arising from the
earnings OF the railroads under The management of
the petitioner As such receiver and manager.
There is another reason which, in my judgment ,
makes the interference of the Court proper upon
this petition. The petitonee in this cause.
and the property passed into The hands OF receivers
upon ITS application and Is being administered in
that cause for the benefit of those entitled TO the
property in proportion TO then respective rights in
the same. 1t would be inequhable to permit any
one party to Obtain q preti cnce IN any manner
over The others, or Withdraw Tar their own benefit
any portion of the fund which should be paid into
Court and distributed according to The equitable
rights of the parties entItle L.
l have deemed this a proper occasion on which to
define the legal relations wlch the petitionee and
parties to this sustain this property
and IN doing so l have sought to avoid the intro
ducton Of any new o. strange doctrine but
rather to apply the authoritative principles of Equi-
ty Law. The consideration OF the subject matter of
the petition does not demand any expression OF
the petitioner its predecessors IN office have
discharged their du y That remains TO be deter
mined Neither Is il competent this hearing TO
modify or change any previous orders in relation
To any funds which The petitioner has may
celve, growing out OF the trust property, but while
this cause remains IN Court and The Court Is charged
with The administration OF this property, the ser
wants and officers OF lie Court who have been
called in to and such administration lriU be pro-
tected while IN the discharge of their duty, and
when the Court lacks the ability afford such pro-
lection, 1t should be deprived OF the power make
any such appointment And If having the ability,
II refuses ncSicctS to exercise IT. il fails The
discharge OF a plain and li1pable duty 1t i com
petent Tor any of the ldItIes to this TO ask
leave of the Court 10 bring action at law agansl
the petitioner but without such leave. the CouIt
will not permit itself to he ousted urldlc
by dIspossessins its officers Of the property
entrusted TO their custody.
HOMER Z. ROYCE,
Chance llOr.