Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1882-10-06
THE RAILROAD LITIGATION.
Dissenting opinion of Judge Tau Ia
the Langdon Case.

Dissenting opinion of Judge TAFT In
the LangdOn Case.
Judge Taft has Just filed with the reporter
of the Supreme Court dissenting opinion in
the case of James r. Langdon ct al. VS.. the
Vermont and Canada railroad company ct
ais The opinion OF the majority of the
court held that the corpus and property Of
the Canada as we'll as that of the Central,
I.werc holden for the payment of the trust
| Indebtedness. Judge Taft dissents, so far AS
| the Canada is concerned, and believes that
| only the property of the Central is liable.
The full text Of the opinion is as follows;
Without entering at length into discus
sion of the various legal que stions involved
| in this case, desire to enter my dissent from
the opinion OF the court upon one of the
most important points,
can not concur with my brethren in hold
| ing that TIE Indebtedness of the managers of
the property in question constitutes IL lien,
or can be made u charge upon the Yer
mont and Canada railroad. 1t is said that
this question is res ddjudicdtd. |
do not so regard it, notwithstanding
what is said in the opinion in this case, re
ported in the sd Vermont, p. 2S3. con-
slider it an open question. do not deem ii
material upon this hearing to pass upon the
question ot the particular character in which
the managers have been acting. They were
either s'fic' receivers OF managing aeeh's' ~
cohtrol III .he popc'iS ny 'he conscn, vi NY
oWhers' ActlnS III ei'nei cAp"c'tf' t"e oiu'
nary rule applicable in case of receivers
would apply. The managers would be emit
tea ont ot Tine iuhus 10 thc'r COSTS charge
and expenses properly incurred IN inc us
charge oil Their ordinary dunes, or III ektraor
uihary services, winch nave oeeii sanc'iohc'
by the court. am aware mat III some III
stances repay iiich' u tue managers VI 'h'
property oil advances maze ny lheih mas Deci
ordered OUT OIL ,ne '"P"s vi tlo es'",c ny
on Receivers, ~ Am, cd., p, 23o. Ana I'M
latter rule, ! thihk'is properly appHeu IN lhi
case rs against the vermont ,Ghtral rairoa'
and us mortgages All tha', thihE' mas
yet Deen ueciuci ny this couit-us'h@ th
WORDS Oi Jnu9e heuiieiu-h lna' court
, equity wouiu charge the PI"PtFey "nW "a
me Suyoct ~ tht FtctttFSMp' createu ny w
court IN lool III pehill d! thc oyha toe hol''
ers vi su'' po"Hs !tnusc iss"cu w 'nc mana
gers, WIN an equllaolc liep, ana cause IL u
respond IN payment oil such debts II Is II
determining what the FUNDS, or the prop
, erly whlch was the sunJeet oi the receiver
snip, was 'ha'' l 'i'lR' Inc court nav
erred.
Inc rec.ivefsnip was otiSihally ordered D.
/ reason OF Tue uelhu't VI the Nernioht tcnt'u
railroad company. lhat corporation IS VIVA
| regard AS the P'md'y p"Tty ana II Is III
property OF that corporation that l INSIST,
the subject oil the reccivership' VIVA
WAS thht property lherc Is no contention
, upon that point. II was Inc road-pcu au
. rolling STOCK OF Tue 'efhont ,eh,rai raiiroa
= company, and the rights OF the latter com
{ pany to the possession anu use Oh Tue vel
f mont and Canada rallroau uhuer inc tease
OF lS49 and 1880; in consideration oil whic
possession aud use certain rent was 10
paid by the Vermont Central railroad CON
pany to the Vermont anu Canada raiiroa
company. The two roads were as distln'
after the leases as before. Their Organ II
=, lions were separate, and there was nothln
n in common between the two. Each con
pany owned It's own road-bed aud one ha
c by contract Il right TO use the road bed
the other, and was under obligations TO pa
4 rent for such USE The estate oil the We
mont Central railroad company IN Inc roa'
n bed OF the other company wasthat OF less'
a leaschold estate, and the receiver
took the property with the same right
and subject 10 the same obligations
it had heretofore been held b
u lessee. Where receiver is appointed oil
I. leasehold estate the performance OF all III
y OblEatons imposed ny Tue possession vi W
a land dcvolves upon hun, and he Is bound,
e the first place, out OF the snb-rents or receipt
>, To discharge the head rent, where the rlgl
~ OF the landlord is uudspntcd, without a
'e order for that purpose. In the case nj III
~ the rent due the lessor WAS paid and dischaI.
d ed until the year 1872. Until that time, ,
its rent had been duly paid, the Vermont
IN Canada Railroad Company Ind no cause Il
30 complaint since thu, time il has been ear
Of estly protesting against the possession OF Il
u. present managers. Upon what princip
Of then, OF law or equity, the property of Il
Vermont " Cauana Railroad Company ca
in the way proposed, be taken to pay the e.
pcnses Of the trust, am unable todetermin
IS and for this reason dissent from the CO..
NJ clusion ut which my brethren have arrive
NJ That corporation is OF course, liable for ,
Obligations which they have h"fnl'y assul
n. ed, and the holders of such obligations have
ar respect thereto full aud adequate RENEE
W. at law, but they have no right to II FOL
Is, closure OF the property of the company
Ii, question as they have no lien upon it. p
sessing only the rights of an ordinary cree
NJ. tor. may he sain that. as the receiyersl
" was or;rinal,v created upon the pc,ition Al