The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1876-03-15
THE JACKSON RAILROAD.
Proceedings Upon the APPlic1A
ton for al Receiver.
New Orleans Picayune-l

| States Circuit COURT, on DenalI OF the ILL
nois Central Railroad Company and trustees
/ of the mortgage tor SS.0O0,U made by the
| New Orleans, Jackson q Great Northern
| Railroad Company, alleging that the inter-
| est had been in default for one year and over,
! and that the road was bankrupt and Insol-
vent, had judgments against it, and was
| also liable, by virtue of iIs consolidation
! with the Mississippi Central Railroad Com
pany, to all the debts OF that last named
company, which was also insolvent.
And the bill prayed that the trustees
should be put in charge of the road accord
ing to the terms of the trust.
| Motion was noticed upon this bill tor
| Monday, March 9th, that the application
| for the relief prayed Tor in the bill would
| be filed.
This motion was continued over until to-
day, when it came on to be heard Judge
John a. Campbell and Charles E. White
head, for the Illinois Central Railroad Com
| pany Gen. f c. WalthaIl and l.. E. ST.
| mons, Esq, Hays Il New and w. A. Gordon,
! or the defendants; the New Orleans, Jack
/ on & Great Nor.hern Ra ilrOad Company,
and Mr.. T j. Semmes for Henry Lewis, a
mortgage creditor
Gen. E. C. Walthall stated the position
taken by the d. teudant, and said that it was
| admitted that the condition of the road was
such as to nder the appointment of a re
| ceiVer necessary
! Judge Campbell said every thing had been
! done on the part OF the plaintiffs to entlle
| him TO take possession of the road according
| to the deed of trust.
Pending certain negotiations, he had sug-'
| gested Il receiver, one OF the trustees, Mr.
! Alexander, and he thought that the trustees,
! Messrs. Newell q Alexander, should be put
in possession of the road. He then read
decree drawn up by himself to carry out the
/ prayer OF the bill.
Gen. Walthall considered it to be too
much in the nature of final decree, and
went beyond the notice given to defendants,
I rlnh ad nnti ffN 10 fBni,-
The court should proceed as if in cham
bers, and could only make such DEGREES as
| would give temporary relief.
No resistance could be made to the appli-
cation for the appointment of temporary
| receiver, but the court could not act FINALLY
| until the defendants answer had been filed.
The question, he said, was whether there
was enough in the bill to warrant the plac-
| ing of the road in the hands of a receiver,
! to hold the property together until the court
can hear the Case on the answer AID proof.
Judge Campbell asked that the affidavits
be read. showing the demand for payment,
ownership, demand for possession, which
was refused by the company.
Gen. Walthall replied that these allega-
| tons were admitted, but that the authority
of the court was not thereby enlarged.
Mr.. Semmes agreed to the appointment of
a receiver, as the preliminary motion, with
all the usual orders, aud prescribing what
shall be done until final decree is made.
That he was not willing to admit the
bonds to be valid obligations, and would
! dispute the right to make in Louisiana
contract by which a MORTGAGE can be put
in possession OF, and administer, the prop
erty.
He argued that the court should take
charge of the property to be administered
until the sale-that it BE- held for whom it
may concern, until final decree He agreed
to the appointment Of Mr.. Alexander as re-
ceiver.
Judge Campbell said it was admitted that
the road was insolvent That there was ev-
idence to show that the floating debt
amounted to two millions dollars, and that
here were thirty odd suits pending in the
courts against the company.
That the accounts showed the interest
payments to be in arrears since 1874 That
there was no expectation on the part of the
company of paying the Indebtedness.
In reply to Judge Campbell, Gen Wal
thall said that it had been stated that the
company had admitted that the present con
dition OF its affairs was due To the manage
ment of the present administration. He
said that 1t had been distinctly stated, and
he supposed understood, that nothing was
admitted except that in the present cOndi-
ton of the company's affairs the appoint
ment of a receiver could not be successfully
resisted, and he asked the court. in order to
guard against the possibility OF any future
misunderstanding about so i'm Ortant a
matter, that a 5 atement of his admission,
already reduced to writing and signed by
the counsel OF the company, should be read
ana hled, which was done without objec-
ton, and the statement is given below
He said that when tie counsel OF
| the company had. after full inves-
| tlgaglon OF the ompany's affairs, made
| frank admission of Il fact justifying the ap-
pointment of receiver, without requiring
lt to be proven, thus occupying unpecsssa-
rlly the time of the court. he supposed the
com plainants would be content as to the
only inquiry now to be considered. But
Judge Campbell now insisted that the CON-
I had 1Ot ON fa1 81, -.
and repair of the road three millions of
bonds secured by the mortgage, according
to the requirements of the nortvs~-
had also assailed the eom~-- - and
to pay its taxes rany tor failing
! lnauirt~- when neither of these
We're pertinent now i'll view of the
ADMISSION maize Slice, however, these
matters had been referred TO. he would call
the learned connsefs attention to his own
mortgage, Which he was now seeking to
ENFORCE In that mortgage the trustees are
Alexander and Newell, who are com plain
ants IN this bill. The mortgage provides
That the bonas shall be turned over to the
company only when these trustees were
satisfied that work the road had been
done and expenditures made which justified
II, ana the company could not, il these trus-
tees ala their duty, get the bonds in their
hands until they were entitled to them If
wrong has been done, the fault lies with
the trustees, and these trustees who, accord
ing TO the statement of Judge pbell,
allowed this transportation in disregard
OF their duty, his own clients in this
case And. what is more, they are the very
men he is now asking shall be put in pos
session of the road on simple notice to the
company to show cause why a receiver
should not be appointed. AS to taxes he
stated that those not paid were in Tennessee
ana Louisiana, and the company were
slst1ng In both States because advised by
counsel that it is not liable to be taxed
under the laws of those States.
he stated that these things did not bear
upon the only question before the court, but
ne referred to them because opposite coun-
sci had done so. He insisted that the court
could do nothing now, settling the rights
OF the parties, but would confine itself to
the appointment of a receiver, and let all
Otner matters rest until the answer TO the
OIL was filed, and this we were not called
on TO do till the return day of the leading
process IN the case. In reply to a position
OF Judge Campbell that the company, in the
norlgage,had contracted to give the trustees
possession in case of default, and that there
lore the court would put them in; that he
oiu not suppose the contract, if broken by
the company, could be enforced on motion
TO appoint receiver. If the company had
promised to pay money. and had failed, the
creditor could enforce his contract and OBJ
tain Judgment for it, but it could not be
done by the means of an interlocutory or
der rendered on a mere motion.
de repeated that while admitting that a
} receiver must be appointed, he objected to
any appointment that did not look to the
interests of all parties concerned, and not
one creditor merely.
The cause was then submitted, and the