The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1875-10-14
Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad.

Much surprise was expressed i'll this comm,,-
nifty on receiving the intelligence that a receiv-
er had been appointed for the Chesapeake and
placed in his hands, with unlimited power to
run as he pleased, and with what officers he
might select. The order of Judge Bond to
that effect is published in this issue of the
VIRGIMIAN.
In explanation of the haste that characteri-
following extract from the Diepatch, giying
the substance OF an interview with Mr.. Andrew,
the attorney for the b0ndholders, who precipi-
tated action:
Mr.. Andrew, of New York, counsel of the
complainants. and Henry Tyson, of Baltimore,
reached the city OH Saturday morning. Mr..
Tyson brought with him a bond as receiver of
the road, with the name Of himself as Drinci-
pal, and the names of J. E. Tyson, Geo. Small,
and Washington Booth, of Baltimore, signed as
slreties. A petition was presented to Judge
Bond by Mr.. Andrews, and Immediately there
upon the Judge signed the order above. Mr..
Andrews stated to IL reporter of this paper that
he mentioned the condition of the road, the
judgments against it. the seizures made and
threatened, to Judge Bond day or two after
entering the complaint and petition for APP
pointment OF receiver. and that Judge Bond
said that the facts mentioned were, in his opin-
ion, sufficient to warrant an appointment Of
receiver at once. At the same conversation
between Mr.. Andrews and Judge Bond the
names OF several persons thought to be suitable
for the position of receiver were discussed, and
Judge Bond expressed his preference for Mr.
Tyson, whom he knew we'll. The others he
did not know. Mr.. Andrews stated that after
this interview he returned to Baltimore. and
Mr.. Tyson having been informed that his SER
vices would probably be required, got his bond
prepared and came on to Richmond.
The Dispatch further says that ''Mr. An
drews was particularly anxious that the news
papers should inform their readers that the
Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company had
nothing to do with the proceeding against the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company
The Enquirer of the u, has the following in
reference to the matter
The suit instituted in the United States court
bv Richards and others against the Chesapeake
and Ohio Railroad Company for a receiver, an
Injunction. ami for d fnl ecioSre of he first
mort gage has the. effect OF excluding all other
separate suits against the property of hat cor
poration. All proceedings by any other credi-
tors will have to be taken in the pending suit,
and the rights Of tie parties will be litigated
and settled in it. This will prevent a great
multiplicity OF suits. The proceeding will be
for the receiver to collect all the property Of
the company. and when the court DEGREES it
the road will be sold. All creditors will then
| be required to produce and prove their claims
in this suit and commissioner will Diet ermine
who are to be paid and the priorities in which
the payments are to be paid
The litigation will probably be a long and
tedious one, and the probable result will be
that the road will be purchased by the first
mortgage bondholGers Of the Chesapeake and
Ohio Railroad Company. Who holds those
bonds and who will ultimately become the
owner of the road is yet to be seen.
Yesterday 10. Lane Stern, in behalf of Jas.
Lyons, surviving trustee in the million dollar
deed Of 1854, filed bill praying that the said
trustee and the beneficiaries under the said
deed be made parties to the suit, and that Hen
ry Tyson be removed from the receivership-
The bill claims that they have prior lien upon
what was known as the Virginia Central rail
road, which extended from Richn. ond to Staun-
ton and beyond, and that 5000, 900 mortgage
debt was ahead of this. Mr.. Lyons advertised
the railroad TO be sold about three months ago,
but the company raised the money and paid
the interest due on his claim, but the order of
sale has not been rescnded.
Hugh w. Fry and William Fl. mcfarland,
the other trustees named in the deed, are now
dead.
The court entered an order to show cause. on
the 22d inst, why the prayer of the bill should
not be granted,