Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1881-02-04
The Vermont Central Litigation.

Judge Barrett's opinion, traversing tie
late decision of the Vermont Supreme Court.
has been given to the public. Judge Barrett
holds that his decision in 1877 so Vt. reports,
300 covered the ground and says
1t was IN that case decided that after the
compromise decree of 1864 there had been
no receivership, created and administered by
the court but only contract management.
under the control of the parties in interest
1t should not now be held Otherwise nor
should this case be disposed of on any differ
ent ground. II should be considered and
disposed of as one in which the holding and
management, after the compromise decree,
went on by the agreement of the parties,
down to the accession of the Central Yer
mont railroad company, and not by the con-
troll and order of the court This was ex-
pressly held and demonstrated in the decision
of 1871
lie claiIas that the rights of the Vermont
and Canada and of the mortgage bondholders
are prior under that decree to the rights of
the creditors of the Central Vermont, and
that the latter is answersble for the Il tmost
care and direc,ness in managing the property
Is a source and means of realizing income,
ever since it took possession IN 1873.
Judge Barrett SAYS:
The Vermont Central railroad company
and its mortgages owned its road, and they
have not parted with their title. 1t had a
perpetual lease of the Vermont and Canada
railroad, giving the right to possession and
use, subject to the payment of the stipulated
rent. Kent getting In arrear the property
went into the hands Of the receivers Of the
court, whereof TO make income by use, and
pay the rent. Afterward by arrangement
it went INTO the hands of fidnclary
managers, in the interest only of the
primary parties, for the purpose, by use, to
realize income with which to pay said rent,
and also the interest and principal of the
mortgage bonds Professedly for that pur-
pose the possession and management was
held, down to the accession of the Central
Vermont Company in 1873. Professedly for
that purpose said company took the posses
sion, in succession to the managers under
the compromise decree, upon the Joint petit
ton OF said company ald said managers, and
against the viii and objection of the legiti-
, mate and primary parties. That possession
| and management for said proiessed pur-
poses went on. and is still going on, and vet,
since June 1872, no rent has been paid. nor
| interest or principal on said bonds. Since
1876 nothing has been paid on the securities
issued by the prior management The party
in possession has gone on the SAME as if abso-
lutte owner of the proparty, building and en-
larging derots, laying steel rails, running and
equippirg and helping in the construction of
other roads, receiving and discussing the re-
ceipts and proceeds as if absolute owner of the
property, without duty, accountability or lia-
bility to anybody el-e. And now said party
in possession, viz, the Central Vermont rail-
soad company with the persons constituting
said company, and divers persons having a
community OF interest in the result asked, is in
court, asking, as the result of the stewardship
which has been exercised over the property,
that decree may be made that will respec-
lively divcst the original parties of their title
to the property, and of their rights in the use
and income of it, without the payment of ac-
crued arrears of rent, or ofinterest, or princi-
palOf said bonds, and without resource for the
payment of anything on the score of rent, or
mortgage bonds in the future. Such C his
tory and such an asking are without paral-
lei. Such result. outside of the court that
shall dee.ee it, cannot without difficulty be
comprehended and appreciated as legiti-
mate result, obtained by correct applica-
ton and just administration of the law gov
erning, defining and enforcing the rights,
duties and liabilities of the respective parties
and interests involved