Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1881-01-14
The Lab0ur Claims Against tue Va.
Midland Railroad COHlNRnY

IN The Court or Appeals. aS stated 10 ycstor-
days Gazette, Judge Staples delivered tho
opinion in thu case Of Williamson's admins.
traitor vs.. Graham ct aIs., anl Abhcts from
Company Vi. same.
Tho original bill IN Ito csso waa I'll ID in July,
1916, 10 tho Ci.cai! Court Of Alexsndria, by
John 9. Ggah,m. Ga behalf OF himself and
other crcdilora, against tho Washington CITY,
Virginia Midland aud Gro,t Southern Railroad
Company. Altor scttiag out tho ac7oraI deeds
OF trust Constituting licna Oh tho road, the bill
charges tho insolvency OF tho company Ii
aIlagos that The current not revenues of tho
| road orc insufficient 10 satisfy tho annual inter.
| est upon ls indebtedness. AID it asks that
rtc,Vcr &c appointed by tho Court to teko
charge OF th0 property, to c,licc. its rons,
tocls lrc)7ic, end profit; that al aooount of
| tho assets ho taken, sale OF tho property he
ordered. md proper distribution OF tho pro-
Goods b. madA Tor general relief
"a the l3.h Of July, 1876 Oh order was
entered III tho cause ocn!ofmabIy to the prayer
Of tho bill, CT dining Tho company from further
| nncrnticg tho roRd. aud appointing John s.
Barbour receiver Other orders wore entered
from time to time, but ihoy need not bs spea
cialIy mentioned here, RS they havo 20 material
Tearing upon tho matters 10 controversy.
10 The progress of tho c,usc ono Of the ap.
ncllrcs--!ho Abbott Iron Company lis
petition asking to ba paid baIenco Of about
$1,000 duo that c>rrpany FIR iron rails fur,
Dishtd tho railroad company in May md July,
1873. which rails ware ia US, NJ he limo ct tho
appointment Of The receiver.
The rtss,n assigned by tho officers oil tho
ojmpary Tor lhN tauro to pay this claim was
| .hnt, alter lag for labor and material 10
operate tho road. they Htro compelled 10 TO-.
s;rVo liz revenues To ray past dua interest On
| tho company mortgage dobts.
The other Sppclnnls also filed petitions ssk-
Ing to lie Paid fer lnmbcr furnished, aud for
services rcnderld as employees Of tho company
| prior to the appointment of receiver. All tho
clana thus asserted against tho coDpauy for
material AID supplies furnished, and for salaries
and wages OF employee amount to about $2it,
600. exclusive Of Interest.
Upon this staio Of iaG.s The question arises
6hoihfr these claims; not having been paid by
Tao COMPANY cut OF tho ourrcat revenues Of tho
| r0at, as they ought TO hnvc been paid, arc nov
entitled TO be paid from the net revenues in the
hands CT tho receiver in rrcferouca to tho debts
duo tbs mortgage creditors.
Alter rcvicwiGs ;ho c,sn Judge Staples oos-
clud;d as follows:
Upon tho whole oaso. uy opinion is tnat tho
c!nim5 Which arc tho subject of this Controversy
ought to bo pcid out Of tho not income CT tho
| road in the hands of tho receiver. If this 10 I.
como has been used under tho instructions of
tho Circuit CONT for other purposes. the
prooaods of tho sslo Ct tho road Itself
may DO used PRO tEnto to satisfy such claims.
10 this no well founded OBJECTION GIN be
urged. 1t is O nero restoration Of what hiss
been diverted siEco tho rtceivevship; and tho
result is precisely tho Same to tho parties
concerned. If as between tho mortgage cred,
itors themGc!7cs C portion of them havo re-.
ceIved, in tho way Of interest, that which
they Uero Justly snIi!Iod to; or if expcr-
ditures have beoo made which ought
not TO have besu made, it is no fiult of the
petitioners and tho other like creditors. Tho
existence OF the;o was known SIS esrly as No.
vsmber, lS7G, and it was no doub. understood
they would TO asserted in this suit. Tho decree
OF the Circuit Court Of Alexandria must DO re-
VorSed, and tho cause remsndei fer further pro-
ceodlngs in that court in conformity with tho
Vows herei:; expressed,