New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-04-30
THE COURTS.
A BANKRUPT RAILROAD.

A BANKRUPT RAILROAD.
TIE APPOINTMENT OF A SECOND RECEIVER OF THE
SOUTH SIDE RAILROAD ASKED FOR BY JUDO
MENT CREDITOR.
The troubles of the South Side o.. ~ Rail-
road, back and forth like shuttecock between
New-York and Kings County courts. were rehearsed
again yesterday before Judge Donohue in the Supreme
Court here. The matter came up on motion TO appoint
a receiver the suit Of Edward s. Clnch against the
Railroad Company, one receiver Mr. Gale, as published
Saturday having already. by recent order OF Judge
Donohue assumed that Office in another suit against the
Company Mr. Clinch IL Judgment creditor OF the
Company and his interests In this motion were repre-
sented by John Bergen Edgar NJ Cullen appeared for
the Company. and Benjamin Tracy for the trustees
while Charles Jones appeared on behalf of Marshal Har-
low, who incluied among those restrained by IN
junction from interfering with the receiver.
The motion OF Mr.. Bergen for the appointment OF
receiver responded TO first by Mr.. Cullen who said
the action was in the form of proceeding TO dissolve
corporation. There had been action in bankruptcy,
and the Of the property had been pat into Che hands
Of the by the United States Marshal An action
TO dissolve corporation. he claimed, must be brought
the of the people, and receiver having been
already appointed there could not be another As the
bankrupt law had been put operation the Bankruptcy
Court had exclusive jurisdiction.
Mr. Tracy stated the conditions OF the suit AZ II ia at
present. saying that proceedings bankruptcy had
ottn DtEun DtiOIt tle5o io thpuehb tHo
Bankruptcy Court could protect ITSELF and did not re-
quire the interference OF this Court Another
answer he made to this proceeding wac that
! in an action IN which the trustees IN pos
session have begun TO foreclose, the receiver, Mr..
Gale as well as Mr. Cnch, the judgment creditors, had
been parties here in the foreclosure and the
injunction had been obtained and issued against them
/ restraining them from Interfering IN any way Win
the trustees. IN possession under the mort
gage that nor only tu an hl Dee x .
tncm bus they had stipulated M open court mat they
would make motion and take no nterlocJuOry order
Mr. Bergen denied the existence OF sucn stipulation,
wnereupOn Mr. Tracy added that II ne understood the
0n that they would not apply take any order for
receverslip affecting the mortgaged promises OF the
that stipulation, ana he hoped there would be no mis-
understanding about IL When the COMPANY should 20
back the whose stipulation the other side was
violating 10 have them punished TOR contempt, ne
did not want % DC met 10y denial that they Mad not Ia
| this court moved FOR a receiver.
Mr.. Bergen-You viii not be met with denial in fact
or 10 act We are moving Tor receiver OF tne properly
/ OF any ortglgod property Whatever. - e.. ...,
| meut OF counsel. that the mortgaZed premises be
rcer who ma he appointed In tins action and that
such appointed here may De directed 70 take
| by the mor,gaged property. We do now many
receivers arc appointed vi The property Of the corpora
Ou provided the property covered by this mortgage IS
exempt from the authority OF that receiver and the
possession OF the therein ~ protected We say
this action judgment creditor lOr receiver
On the ground no mas had an execution returned
subject IL is absolute answer To the proposition
that he las two executions returned Glsatished
| aud On It lovies have been made. II Is alb
surd say that party may issue an execution upon
! company whose road runs through three or -FOUR
counties sheriff OF each Of those counties aud on
getting q return from one lie a Judgment. know OF
30 statute making n obligatory upon corporation 10
have enough property one county, Whtn us road runs
through thee four 20 pay ali Ito DEBTS Inc party
must exhaust his proceeding az law This ID proceed
ing equity after the remedy at law mas Olen eX.
haused II such suggestion must OF Itself
Mr. Bergen IN reply said thaJ the bankruptcy pro-
...J,ug NO. fraud az me claimed IL WAS then the pos
session under tlat good for nothing against the re-
ceiver, il should be appointed A. TO me second
Oh eCtion-that this petition Was made III VOCATION Oh
Judge Pratts OrGer-the counsel SAID Ne uaue no app
ca0n the appointment OF receiver specifically OF
any property Whatever lie simply ASKED Ior receiver
OF whatever property the south -lde ktTOaG company
! Ordna application. and the question simply was
whether Court would. upon preliminary state OF
facts appoint receiver 20 take whatever thele might
be 20 behalf OF the creditors OF Ills corporation
! uut.l all the facts appear.
Mr. Tracy-WAat 10 Jon say OF the two executions
| Ou;.taudlngi go
simply requires u 10 issue the execution 70 the
county where tle COMPANY ives, anu l , 70 oo.s
That we nave done sud ti9 executor n'1 Don r.
turned wholly unsdtsfed ana We are NOT ooIged 10 20
further issue execution 10 every county WntIe
/ Hr Cullen made a brief statement arguing that Judge
Douobue hat no right 20 appD.. d second receiver OF
/ the property wuen ne lad agcady appointed one, 10
which Nj Bergen replied mat 1e uad perfect rgL 20
appoint IOO-as As there we're Applications made.
/ Nir Bergen then spoke briefly upon second matter
I order 10 show cause why injunction granted by
Judge DOuonue, restraining tue officers Of the company
interfering VIII the receiver should lot DC con
uuued % which replies were made aul MI Jones Lheh
/ argued opposition ON sue pait OF Marshal Harlow.
Al the cone u-Ou Judge DJuOIue TOOK Le papers ana
announced he would decide the mater this morn
/ ing az ~ % CLOCK.