Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1881-04-29

The CENTRAL VERMONT LITIGATION
4 hearing was held at ST Adams before the
Court of Chancery relative TO the appoint-
mcut Of masters to ascertain and report the
amount due of principal and interest ON all
the bonds and securities issued and negotiat-
ed by the receivers, trustees and managers OF
the Vermont Central Railroad Company, the
amount due on the floating debt, and also
how, when and under what circumstances
il has been contracted. The motion made
before the chancellor for the appointment OF
masters to take this accounting was in con-
formty with mandate made by the Su-
y me Court of Vermont in connection OF
their decision last December in the case of
Langdon ct al, vs. the Vermont and Canada
Railroad Company Ell al, and was moved in
this instance by Hon. b. F. Fiheld, counsel
for the receivers and managers of the Yer
mont Centraland Vermont and Canada roads.
Hon. f. j. Ph~'ps and A. f. Walker ap-
pearcd in L lalf of certain mort
gage bondholders and the Vermont
and Canada Railroad Company. All the
parties in the case were favorable TO the
appointment of the Masters, the only ques-
ton being as TO the parties who should con
stitute the board. 1t is probable that three
Masters will he selected 10y Judge Royce for
the purpose from list of names that have
been submitted by the counsel in the case, and
that the board SO constituted will begin the
accounting at an carly day. A Commissioner
will be appointed by the Chancellor 10 sit in
Boston for the purpose OF taking record OF
such bonds and securities of the Vermont
Central Railroad rs are held in Massachu
sets. Upon the ascertanment of the owner
chin and the amOnntl N the varipIa placspe
of securities and floating debt and all facts
pertaining thereto by the Masters. they will
report to the Chancellor, who will thereupon
enter "A decree that will secure the realiza-
ton of the rights of all parties interested
in the property NJ they may be determined.
ScAIING DowN lNsuRANoE.-We under
stand the insurance companies scaled tn,
losses on the buildings recently burned il
this place 10 the amount Of $3.50, or abou
sixteen per cent on the whole amount Of tn,
insurance, $500. There was no question a
| to the validity of the insurance, or that tn,
/ loss was total. The reasons assigned by TN
| companies for this course of action was cx
Ccssive insurance, and that the building
could he replaced for less than the amount o
/ the policies. Hence Their proposition IA
above, which was accepted.
We do not suppose any one of the partie
who suffered loss at the recent fire expectc,
t. he burned out, nor do we suppose the,
had the least doubt but that they would re-
ccive the full face OF their policies shout,
| such an event occur. We refer, of course
To the buildings on which the companic
were willing Ia take premiums for the iul
amount OF the risk without question. In til
present instance the savings bank, if we ar
correctly informed, has no right to build
The property came into their hands on
mortgage and WAS in the market. The mex
block belonged 10 an undivided estate an
was not available for use by any OF the pal
ties in interest. In these cases there WAS II
alternative but 10 accept what WAS offered 4
20 into litigation.
Ia this connection it may lie well to rcca
the hill before the hast legislature ofTcrc
and pressed by Nr .ludevine of llardwicl
which was intended to meet Just such cas-,
IA this Of which we are speaking. The hi
provided that nm insurance company accep
ing a risk ON IA given piece of property i'll IL
event of loss should lie compelled to pay
full according to the promise. That woul
seem to lie far and honorable. But Il
stock companies threatened to withdri,
t from the State entirely if such All act WI
t passed, and so the bill failed and the Peep
| of Vermont mt t for two years more pay
, enormous amount Of premiums to foreil
p companies without any certain knOwlcd
, whether they are insured or not '|O0dsto
.StdHdard