Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1884-03-16
SETTLED AT LAST.
The Rscsiyership of The Ohio Con-
trail Railroad.
Receiver Sharp to Control the En-
tire Line,
Including the Contested Portion
in Ohio.
The Text of Judge Jackson's Ruling
in the Case.
Special 10 the Register.

CHARLESTON, w. Va, March 15.-Judge
Jackson, of the United States District
Court, for the District of West Virginia,
sitting as Circuit Judge, arrived here to-
day and rendered his decision extending
the power OF Thos. r. Sharp as receiver
over that portion of the Ohio Central rail.
road, lying between Corning. Ohio, and the
Ohio river, in the three cases Of Nelson,
Robinson, ct al, owner, and Johnson, Cen
tral Trust Co., of New York, against the
Ohio Central railroad. The question in
yolved was that of conflict OF jurisdiction
between the United States District Courts,
for the District of West Virginia and the
United States District Court for the South.
ern District of Ohio.
Judge Jackson Held
as that between proceedings in Federal
tribunal his court first required jurisdic-
tion over the subject matter OF the contro'
yersy and upon the question OF jurisdiction
arising upon the proceedings begun and
held in the State courts ii is conceded that
they were prior TO any instituted in the
Federal courts. 1t appears Nelson Robin
son filed his bill on September 20, 1883, in
the Court OF Common Piess OF Lucas coun-
", Q asRlng for foreclosure of the mort.
gsge on the Ohio Central R'y Co., and
The appointment of a receiver from the
court; that court exercised jurisdiction,
and appointed John E. Martin receiver.
SubseQ Quently the case was removed to the
Circuit Court of the United States for the
Southern District OF Ohio. IL was claimed
in the discussion OF the case by the com.
plain MS, and
scarcely CoDtroverted by the Defend
ants,
that tire Court Of Common Pleas OF Lucas,
o., had TO Jurisdiction ever the defendant
Company or its property under the stat
utes Of Ohio, for the reason that the de-
feIdant company did Iot reside in
the county, nor was any portion
Of the defendants property covered
by a mortgage found in that county.
This construction of the Ohio statute
seems to have been adopted by the court Of
the Sixth circuit in the appointment of its
receiver, as Martins appointment was
made solely under the bill filed by the
Central Trust Company. In this view OF
the construction OF the Ohio statute IL will
not only concur but conclude that the pro-
csedings Instituted in the Court OF Com.
mon Pleas of Lucas county, o., were coram
non JUDGE, therefore nullity. But the
case is very different In the courts OF the
state Of West Virginia. The same bl Ii that
was ed in the Court OF Common Pleas OF
LuGss county, o., was
flied In the Circuit Court OF Mason
County,
West Virginia, October 3rd, 1888, at which
time the defendant company appeared TO
said bill, waived service OF process and
Joha L. Martin was appointed receiver.
On October 20th, lSo3, the cause was re
moved TO this court and regularly docketed
therein. 1t is conceded that the Circuit
Court OF Mason county, West Virginia, lad
jurisdiction over the defendant company s
was wholly unlike the case in the Court OF
Common PleQs oil Lucas county, Ohio 1t
will be obs erved then that the State Court
in West Virginia acquired full aud com
plete Jurisdiction Oh October ,, 1883, the
day the bill was filed and that by reason
of its removal to this court this courts
Jurisdiction relates back to that date.
Under the proceedings
This COur; acquired Jurisdiction
as OF that date which is price to any
legal proceeG,d instituted in the courts OF
OHIO and the jurisdiction thus acquired Is
not only prior, bat is complete ard eXclu'
sve over the defendant compsny's proper
~. But one questions remains Ennoticed,
that is, can this court extend It's Jurisdic.
tion over the defendant cOmCaays prop
erty beyond It's geographical. Or territorial
| jurisdiction. This is trGst estate and
must be admin.stere a. Sn entirety for
| the position OF al concerned. Ii
IS well settled that the court tha,
| first takes jurisdiction Of part of the trus
estate has a les al right TO administer upon
the whole. 1t follows that this court
having prier jurisdiction over that portion
| Of the Il st estste found in this cirCuit b
reason Of jurisdiction thus acquired 1t ha
| Il right to administer upon that portion
of the trust estate lying between the Ohi'
River and Corning, Ohio. An order viii
-, entered extending the jurisdiction .
| Receiver Sharp over the entirs property o
! he defendant company to that place.