Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-12-22
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.
CHESAPEAKE s. OHIO REOEIV ERsH1P

,CHEsAPEAKE s. OHIO REOEIvERSHIP.
Pursuant to its adjournment on Monday, the
United States Circuit Court was held ag ain in
this city to-day, commencing at IL o'clock,
Chief Justice Waite and Judge Bond presid-
ing, and the argument of the question Of jurs-
diction resumed
The important interests 10 litigation have at
tracted the attention Of the legal profession TO
such an extent that many members of the Rich
mond and Washington bars, and of the bar of
this city, we're IN attendance, merely as audi.
tors, being 10 no wise connected with the case,
and prominent among them was MIR. Phillips,
OF the bar OF the Supreme Court. Judge Jack
son occupied seat on the bench by courtesy.
All the attorneys representing the various
creditors of the Chesapeake and Ohio road and
Of the road itself, We're present, except Mr..
MacFarand, who argued the case Cd behalf of
the first mortgage creditors on Monday There
were some rcinIorcements to the attorneys
seeking to sustain the jurisdiction OF the u. S.
Court, who arrived from Richmond to-day,
ADD if all engaged 10 the case, some fifteen in
number, are allowed to argue, several days will
elapse before the Court can obtain full posses
sion of the multitndinous views of counsel
Mr. ward, of Richmond, latter Mr. Smoot
concluded his remarks) began his argument
this morning, and addressed the court at length.
He commenced by unravellipg the facts of the
case which up to that time had never been
fully explained to the court, aud which are of
an extremely complicated nature, and for the
first time, SO far as the argument is concerned,
pointed out to whom the legal title to the
Chesapeake and Ohio railroad now resides,
with view of reviewing before the court who
are the parties essential to the Jurisdiction of
the court Quoting the opinion of Judge
Shipman, one of the opposing counsel, deiv-
cred by him when upon the bench in New
York, Mr.. Howard drew the distinctions be-
tween formal and necessary parties to a cause,
and next distinguished between simple mort
gage, mortgage with power of sale, and a
deed of trust, and the effect of proceedings to
enforce mortgage by mortgage and
those to execute the requirements of deeds
of trust, and claimed that the status
of the case is predicated upon the latter species
OF conveyance, that the proceedings we're in
the nature of Il creditors bill, bringing all par.
ties before the Court to do full justice to all
simple contract creditors as we'll as thc Sc whose
debts are secured by deeds OF trust or other.
wise, and that the trustees we're in 20 sense es.
sential parties to the cause.
Mr.. Howard gave brief history of the ef.
forts of some Of the plaintiffs aud the defen.
dants to Dust the jurisdiction of the Court, and
animadvcltcd upon the conduct of those who
had invoked the powers Of the Court for their
own purposes which, when frustrated in the
ends of justice, had combined to nuify the
jurisdiction of the Court by technical obstruc
tons, and read authorities to show that under
such circumstances the Court would exercise
against them issummary process for contempt,
and that such combinations we're fraud In de-
priving the Court of its lawful jurisdiction
Mr. Howard next proceeded to answer the
right of the Court to hold jurisdiction where
the parties themselves desired to dismiss their
cause, and read authorities aud argued that
where u receiver has been appointed by an or
der of the court, and the rights Of creditors
other than the plaintiff are to be adudicated
in the same court, the plaintiff is 90 longer
domlni,S tits Of the suit, and cannot dismiss it
II grounds exist tor proper objection. Among
other reasons the statute of Limitations might
| Intervene aud defeat the claims of creditors.
| Ii the plaintiff dismissed his suit the petition
ing creditors would DO allowed to file a new bill
nunc pro tune. MIR. Howard read from late
| Federal statutes add referred to the rules of
equity practice in the Supreme Court as drfn-
| ing the powers and jurisdiction of the Circuit
| Court in conformity with his views of their
scope and effect and answered the argument of
Mr.. MacFarland that where the court had no
jurisdiction the proceedings were void alb i,sitto
and showed by we'll settled authority that such
proceedings were not void but voidable by
writ OF error objection at the hearing.
Space does not permit further outline of
the able argument of the learned gentleman,
who closely condensed and analyzed all the
material points remotely or Immediately con-
nected with the case, at the conclusion of which
Judge Bond announced recess.
After recess, Francis L. Smith. ESQ.,, of this
city, followed Mr.. Howard on the same side,
and had not concluded his argument when this
report closed.