Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1876-02-09


there was still $4,000 Of bonds due and not dc
liyercd to Mr.. Munson, which were In Mr. Sort
wells possession, and which Mr. Sortwell claimo
to represent. While Mr. Munson did not den
that there were some deficiencies in the construc
ton u the road, he did say that he was unpa
the amount Of $4,000, principal and interest
Under this contract with the Montpelier Il Wen
River railroad this debt constituted prior lien
col Randall, after stating Mr. Munson'S conncC
ton with the road in detail discussed the qucs
ton Of rocei,crship and argued strongly for th
| appointment Of some disintercsicd and compotcn
man. resident in Vermont
Hos CHARLES II. Ham discussed the poin
raised by Mr. Willard In Mr. Sortwells answer
that individual stockholders could not bring an &C
ton concerning the affairs Of the corporation, bu
that it must be brought by the board Of directors
lie claimed that where the directors rs officers o
the company were in collision with other partie
to injure the corporation, then the stockholders
or any Of them, could come into court and proven
the contamination Of the fraud. lie quoted from
the case Of Dodge rs Watson, in the Eleventh o
Towards Reports to support his position.
JunGE roIAND-Tle same thing has lately beer
decided by Judge Woodruff Of the United State
Circuit Court In the case of the Vermont Vale,
Railroad
MIR Ir,nr argued at length against the APP
pon,ment Of any nonresident to BE receiver
rnE srocRHoIDrns cAsr
Mr. Fwmrp followed Mr. Heath lie said thai
Il was important to examine in the drst instanc,
this bill Of Mr. Sortwcll and see what ground (
alleged for receiver, because he insisted that OF
Mr sortwelrs own showing he was not entitled t
any receiver at all The rule Of law at the presen
time was, that mere default in the payment o
interest on the mortgage bonds was not gfoun,
| for the appointment Of receiver; the court woul,
allow the company to remain in possession tin th'
title was forccosed unless it was proved tina
there was some waste by the company Of the in
como OF The road, So that IL was not reaching
the legitimate purposc which was intended ly N,
mortgage BY examining the bill, the Cour
would find that the only allegation in the bill
which justified the appointment Of q receiver was
where it set ont that the funds Of the road wer,
being diverted from the payment Of interest on thu
bonds, etc Now the man who had diverted thcs,
funds was Sortvell himself, and be himself ha,
done the very things which he complained Of
! There was no maxim better settled than that
man couldn't be heard in alleging his own wronl
ina court of equity sortwell was saying in eifcc
to the court 1t is true came into possession O
this road 1t is true was put in here 10y the vote
Of the stockholders, under solemn arrangement
with them that shouldapproprate the income o
, the road to the payment Of its debts but in m
bill | allege that have been uniaithful to m
trust, aud therefore ask n court Of Justice to in
tcryene in my behalf, and appoint receiver t
take possession Of this property" One did nc
have to be either lawyer or q judge to see III
mccngruity Of that position Mr. Tifeld tie
went on to discuss the question Of rcceiyership
length and stating that all parties desired 90 hay
a receiver appointed, claimed that Mr. Sortwe
had no standing in court, and that his applici
ton should not be entertained, for the reasons a
ready alleged. lie argued in behalf Of the con
paiuants IN the bill brought by the Town Of Mon
pelier and others against Sortwell and Others tia
they were entitled TO the receivorship. becans
they were the owners of a majority Of the share
Of the road; that they had put more than qua
ter Of million Of money into It, and no else had .
great an interest in it He contcnded that N
sale Of the stock by the sheriff was Illegal +,
the reason, among other things, that the Kline
attachment, being subsequent to others, was PIT
into the hands Of different officer; that thei
were three prior attachments made by A.
Sweet, second constable Of Montpelier, and hi
eys was put on by y. +. Averill, Of Barre, deput
sheriff, the law being that all subsequent attacl
ments must be put on by the same officer tbs
made the prior ones. lie also alluded to the 81
cret manner in which the sale was made, and al,
argued that that was enough to render nyal
the sale. lie concluded by urging that the r
ceiver should be a resident Of Montpelier, an
Identified with the interests Of the town. and SUI
gested the name of General p T. Pitkin. as ben
well qualified for the position. II resident
of Montpelier should be deemed ineligible j
would take Mr. Bingham, or Mr. Mason Of Ricl
mond
JUDGE POLAND followed Mr. Ffcd and close
the case for Mr. Munson.
EVENING SESSION
Mn. SHuRTLEFf made the first argument aft,
tea, and confined himself principally to refutr
the arguments of Col. Randall and Judge Polan,
lie stated that the road, instead of owing NJ
MuDson, had been damnifed by his neglect to pc
form his contract and had paid the debts whic
he had neglected TO meet lie claimed that whe
the matter came to hearing, the road woul
be found to owe nothing to Mr.. Munson II
urged the appointment Of a disinterested man
receiver
MR. GLEASON made personal argument, den,
ing fraud or collision with Mr. Sortwell, an
claiming to have had in view in making the sal
the single object OF collecting lis judgment.
Hos. c. W WILLARD closed the discussion +,
Mr. Sortwell. In regard to the receiyership i
he argued that II Mr. Tower was non-res
dent. still he could be made to file bon,
and the court could control him through tina
and that the wishes of the bondholders shout
be respected lie discussed the charge OF mol
performance Of his contract on the part Of NJ
Sortwell, and said that he had paid all the debt
which had been certified by the directors whel
ever the creditors would receive them that NJ
Rinney's claim had been certified at four thol
sand four hundred dollars, two thousand hayin
been deducted 10y the directors as offset and Xii
ney had refused to receive ii, for which Mr. Sor
well was not to blame. He denied the charges
fraud and collision which had been made again
Mr. Sortwell In regard to the sherif's sale r.
turning again 10 the receivership, he objected
Mr. Bingham, and Mr. Mason, Of Richmond b.
cause they were too friendly to the Central Vernon
interest, and would do anything that the Ccntr
wanted, not actually unlawful He suggested Ii
names Of Mr. George A. Merrill, formerly supe
intendent Of the Passumpsic railroad, or Mr..
5. Thompson, Of Lyndon, il Mr. Tower should NJ
be appointed In regard to the injunction again
the stockholders voting, he was willing that thu
should be continued for the present
Mr.. EDWARDS said that II Mr.. Tower was NJ
satisfactory he would propose Mr., Sonwell, WI
had possession Of the road at the present time.
Mn FIFIELp said that he thought they woul
not agree to Mr.. Munson, on the whole.
DECISION OF THE COURT.
A short recess having been taken, the Com
came in again at ten o'clock in the evening, an
Judge Ross rendered the decision He said III,
they had decided to appoint receivers under tn
bill Of foreclosure brought by Mr.. Sortwell, The
agreed perfectly that it was better to appoint me
residents OF the state, because they would be MOI
within the reach Of the Court and under It's dire
ton. Mr. bingham and Mr.. Thompson had bee
suggested by the respective parties, and the Coui
had decided to appoint both The iniunctio
would be continued rs before, with any necessar
modification which other parties might agree /,
THE RECEIVERS DUTIES AND BONDS.
In accordance with the request Of the chance
Tors, Mr.. willard drew up decretal order In r,
gard to the receiyership, which was approved b
Judge Ross, after his arrival here yesterda,
and was taken by him to Bennington for Judg
Powers approval and signature. After recitia
briefly the litigation before the court, and orde
ing the appointment Of the receivers, it authorize