The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1876-03-14
THE JACKSON RAILROAD
Proceedings Upon the ADuIica.
tiOn for IA Receiver,
New Orleans Picayune.

| States CIRCUIT Court, on behalf OF the iii
nos CeHtraI railroad Company and trust, IS
of the mortgage for $8O00,OOO, m de by the
| New Orleans, Jackson & Great Northern
Railroad Company, alleging that the inter
| est had been in default for one wear and over
and that the road WAS bankrupt and insol-
vent, had judgments against it, and was
with the Mississippi Central Railroad Com
pany, to all the debts of that last named
com pany, 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 for
Monday, March 9th, that the application
for the relief prayed for in the bill would
e filed.
This motion was continued over until to-
! day, when it came on to be heard. Judge
John A. Campbell and Charles f. White
! head, for the Illinois Central Railroad Com
pany; Gen. f. G. Walthall and L. E. ST.
mons, Esq, Hays 81 New and w. A Gordon.
or the defendant; the New Orleans, Jack
on Great Northern Railroad Company,
and MI l. ,. Semmes for Henry Lewis,
mortgage creditor.
Gen. E. G. Walthall stated the position
taken by the defendant, and said that it was
admitted that the condition of the road was
such as to render the appointment Of re
ceiver necessary.
Judge Campbell said every thing had been
| him to take possession OF the road according
| to the deed of trust.
Pending certain negotiations he had SUI 10
gested as Il receiver, one OF the trustees. Mr.
Alexander, and he thought that the trustees
| MeSSrS, Newell u Alexander, should be nut
i'll possession of the road. He then read a
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 a final decree, and
went beyond the notice given to defendants,
VINO had until April to file their answer.
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 a 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 i'll the bill to warrant the plac-
| ing of the road in the hands of receiver,
to hold the property together until the court
can hear the Case on the answer AID proof.
Judge Campbell asked that the affidavit>
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, and prescribing what
shall be done until final decree is made.
That he was not wiling to admit the
bonds to be valid obligations, and would
dispute the right to make in Louisiana n
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 cohcern, until final decree. He agreed
60 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 deb,
amounted to two millions dollars, and that
there 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.
La reply to Judge Campbell, Gen. Wal
2 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. HI
said that it had been distinctly stated anC
he supposed understood, that nothing wa:
> admitted except that in the present cOndi
ton of the company's affairs the appoint
ment of receiver could not be successfully
resisted, and he asked the court. in order Il
: guard against the possibility of any future
matter, that a atement of his admission
already reduced to writing and signed b.
the counsel OF the company, should be reat
and fled which was done without objec
ton, and the statement is given below.
He said that when the counsel o
the company had, after full inves
: tigatiOn OF the pany's affairs, made
frank admission of fact justifying the APP
pnintment of a receiver, without requirin,
it to be proven, thus occupying unnecessa
f, rily the time of the court, he supposed tn
r. com plainantS would be content as to tn
- only inquiry now to be considered. Blu
. Judge Campbell now insisted that the com
o pany had not applied to the cOnstructio
G and repair of the road three millions c
O bonds secured by the mortgage, accordin
! 10 the requirements of the mortgage an
u had also assaulted the company for failin
r to pay its taxes, when neither of thes
l. inquiries were pertinent now in view of tf
II admission made. Since, however, thes
. matters had been referred to. he would ca
Ii the learned counsel's attention to his ow
a mortgage, which he was now seeking
l. enforce In that mortgage the trustees al
r. Alexander and Newell, who are complain
ants in this bill. The mortgage provide
. that the bonos shall be turned over to I'll
y company only when these trustees wei
satisfied IT, at work on the road had bee
done and expe mixtures made which justitie
it, and the company could not, II these tru
tees did their duty, get the bonds in the
hands until they were entitled to them.
+ wrong has been done, the fault lies wit
. the trustees, and these trustees who, accort
Ii ing to the statement of Judge Campbe
OF allowed this Misrepresentation in disregal
th of their duty, are his own clients in tn
of case And what is more, they are the vel
e. men he is now asking shall be put in pc
~ session of the road on a simple notice TO Il
es company to show cause why recev
IS. should not be appointed. AS to taxes
IN stated that those not paid were in Tenness
- and Louisiana, and the company were r
ST. sisting in both States because advised
n counsel that it is not liable TO De Tax
d. under the laws of those States.
70 He stated that these things did not be