Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1880-03-12

make in September of last year. The terms
Of all the parties Of Imprisonment for one
year have expired, excepting that OF Sebold,
whose term was eighteen months.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Con-
troversey.
In the United States Cirucuit Court on Fri
day of last week, Judge Bond filed his de-
cision in the preliminary questions argued a
few weeks ago in the case of Daniel X. Stew
art against the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company. The document, which is q lengthy
one, reviews the charter of the canal, the
stock owned by the State in it, the different
loans from the State TO the canal, and the act
passed by the Legislature in 1874 authorizing
the defendant 10 mortgage the tolls and rev.
enues TO secure another loan from the public
generally. The issuing of ST., 700, 600 to COM
plete the canal TO Cumberland after the vari-
Gus loans by the State had proved insufficient
for that purpose, was also referred to. The
Court decided that by the statute under which
the bonds were issued it was enacted that the
right aud loans Of the State upon the revon-
ues of the defcndent should be waived, defer
red and postponed in favor of the bonds issued
under the act of 1874, so as to make such
bonds and interest accruing thereon preferred
10 absolute liens on the revenues of the de-
fendants company until such bonds were
paid, &c. The State further authorized the
company to execute any deed, mortgage or
instrument OF writing deemed expedient or
necessary 10 give the fullest effect to the pro-
visions Of the act. Authorized by this act the
bonds mentioned in this suit were issued, and
n mortgage executed upon the revenues and
tolls of the canal 10 VIM. w. Corcoran, Of the
District OF Columbia, and four others. The
morigagee, Corcoran, by reason of his residence
| in Washington, is not made party to the
suit. His four co-trustees under the mort
gage have been served with process and have
answered the bill. Under the 52d rule in
equity, presented by the Supreme Court, the
parties to this cause have by stipulation Of
counsel submitted three questions to the court,
which are jursdictional in their character.
| The first is whether the State of Maryland
s an indispensable party to the suit. The Sec
ond Is not VIM. W. COrcoran, one of the
trustees, an indispensable party2 and the
| third is Ought not the court to dismiss the
bill altogether and refer the parties to the
State court where suit is alleged to be pend
| ing in which the complainant is a defendant,
and where, MS is claimed, he could have all
his rights in the matter properly adjudicated
| Upon an examination of the record OF the
State court we find that there was bill flied
in 1867 to determine merely the priorities OF
the various lien creditors who held the obi
cations of the defendant company. That bill
certainly asked for n receiver of the rents,
tolls and revenues of the defendants, but it
clearly appears that what was intended by
that action was TO place in the hands of the
receiver such surplus tolls and revenues only
after they had been collected by the company
to be by him distributed 10 the parties after
the court had determined their respective pri-
critics. These priorites were ascertained
The real object OF that suit was accomplished
and nothing further has been done in it, 1t
would be impossible for the present complain
ant, though through the trustees of his mort
gage he was a party to that BILL to get the
relief there which he seeks here That bill al
leges no such grounds for relief as are stated
in the bill before us. Here is alleged fraud
transportation of the receipts of the de-
fendant company and gross misconduct of its
officers. 1t would be impossible TO bring the
suit in the State court unless the whole scope
aud purpose OF il were changed 10 give com
planant in this cause his remedy there. lie
could not file cross-bill nor ask leave 20
amend the bill so as to include the subject
matter of the bill here filed, because he is not
u party complainant there. The alleged
wrongs the complainant seeks to have re.
dressed in this action occurred long after The
determination of the questions involved in
| the salt ia the State court. We have no power
10 send him to another tribunal, because At =
former time and to determine other rights
than those claimed here he sought the juris-
dic,ion Of that forum, without result.
The question next submitted TO us i,
whether we can proceed in this cause with.
out the presence of W W. Corcoran, who /,
one of the trustees ia the mortgage which the
company is seeking to enforce Corcorau
cannot he made u party by reason Of hi.
residence 10 the District Of Columbia Foui
out of five OF the trustees named in this mort.
gage are present in court. They have been
brought here by the process Of the court aud
have answered. Whether or not Corcoran is
an indispensable or even necessary party to
the bill depends upon one fact. If the court
eau determine by its decree the rights of those
cestW 9Ui trusts under the mortgage without
deciding what the rights of the trustee Corco-
ran are then the court is at liberty to proceed
But CorcOran has no interest lie is a
mere trustee Tor the purpose Of doing daly
upon certain contingency. lie holds pub.
lie limit. lie has no title TO anything. lie
hss no legal estate In any property. Ills
/ claim for compensation, even in the event OF
his being called upon to exercise the trust re-
posed in him, is a matter not fixed by law,
but is altogether within the discretion of a
court OF equity.
The next question submitted is whether the
State Of Maryland ought not to he made ,
party. The defendant alleges that the State
is an indispensable party. We have seen hv the
recital OF the acts OF the Assembly of MARYLAND.
status lsil, that the State had "a mortgage on
all the property OF the defendant comnany
together with ils tolls aud revenues. By tina,
act the State authorized the defendant 10
borrow more money upon the pledge OF lis
tolls and revenues, aud declared that the
defendant might pledge the same, and made
the debt so increased preferred and absolute
lien on such toll aud revenue until the same
was paid. This is n suit against the defend
ant company TO enforce the pledge which the
State authorized II TO make. aud which il
did make aud with the complainant. II muet
appear to every one who considers the cir.
eumslances under which the wavsr OF the
States lien was issued that no cue would
have taken them Il Il had been understood
that In order TO enforce the lien there was a
necessity 10 do what u was impossible 10 DO,
namely, 10 make the State party 10 the pro.
cesding. Maryland waived its lien. She
Agfttn WIN Tue delenuNnt company not with
the bondh0ldcrs, that IL might make such
bargain as Il could with the hondholders and
that neither she nor her lien should stand 10
the way Of the enforcement of the contract
against the canal company. Under this an.
thoniy and agreement, which WAS by public
statue, the defendant contracted with the
houdholders. II pledged the revenues aud
tolls upon which the State had therefore a
prior lien rs between the canal, iis stock
holders aud itself. This suit 10 TO compel the
defendant company 10 fulfill the obligation Il
then entered into. 10 our judgment the
State Of Maryland when il authorized this
defendant 10 deal with the public under the
act Of ls4s, aud 10 borrow money by ih,
pledge Of iis tolls aud revenues incurring iis
lieu, said that 10 the extent Of the loan that
the State had no interest in the property Of
defendant All tho States prior dealings