New-York tribune., 1885-10-25
VEST SHORE REOEIVERs MUST pav
MANY SMALL CLAIMS TO BE SATISFIED
AN IMPORTANT DECISION AFFECTING TaE No,r
GAGGED PROPERTY OF THE ROAD


AN IMPORTANT DECISION AFFECTING raR NOM
GAGGED PROPERTY OF THE ROAD.
NEwBURG. N. Y, Oct. Pain Supreme Cou,+
Chambers, to-day, Judge Brown handed down his dec,
in the of the receivers of the New-York West
and Buffalo Railroad Company, which pettioned ~.
Court for instructions about paying the SlOOO00 \,
claims held by claimants against the road o.,
labor and supplies furnished the company for th,a
months after March l, 1884 The claims thus incr,rs
held by great many creditors and some Of them A..
for nursing employees and passengers injured In a.,
DENTS others for digging graves, many for advertsn
and a large number for supplies Of all kind.
Below are given the chief features of Judge R,ov,
opinion:
The conclusion to be deduced from all the autho,,
upon the question submitted to the Court is that nn
debts of the mortgagor incurred for expenses In an
der of the road the receivers are to be regarded
incurred for the benefit Of the MORTGAGE and their pa7
ment may be placed within the category OF payments
It may be taken no as fact, think
tnat psyens S ths SroSertv a. II nave cons
known to every one connected with this litigation that
has not been sufficient to pay for its operating
expenses No has objected to the payments areaiS
made and one now disputes the powers OF the Court
corpus OF the property but 1t is asserted that debts pa
now be said be essential to the preservation
permits the payment Of debts Of the character namsd
not that the mSrtgaged property will receive apreent
operation Of the road during the period Immediately
preceding surrender to the receivers was benefit
the mOrtgagee, and that for that reason all debts con
traated In operating 1t are equitaby first lien upon
the mOrtgaged property. 49,
The time of payment OF these debts Is OF no impo,
tance but If 1t should give 1t little consdsrs
tlon this case, as 1t was STAGED by the receivers oay
on the argument Of this motion that they had orsil,
Dromsed many of the creditors to pay their claims sns
were prevented from carrying out such promises
solely from the want OF funds, and many Of the cred
fhaf aI fh.-
could have successfully instituted proceedings in the
nature Of repsyn to recover possession OF their prop
refuse Induced ssSh S creditors Sss who
their rights lnder promise of payment 1t would also
be a very unjust application OF the power Of the Court
that claimants OF equal equity some should b
In committing the question of payment the discrs
on Of the receivers was not Intended that they should
have the power arbitrarily TO pay one creditor and re-
fuse another and they have not so interpreted the order
1t is evident that they have intended to treat all credit
alike and part fast could be done with ths
funds in their hands being governed solely In dise
mating between claimants by the legal principles which
character The orders OF the Court have thus
practical construction and the Court through these orders
and the of the receivers stands pledged to tho pay
ment Of these claims and no legal objection 70
their being paid from the corpus OF the fund.
All the materials furnished may be said TO have d.
recy enhanced the value Of the mortg gagged property
aud much OF passed directly into the hands OF the
celvers and was used by them IN the operation Of The
Of the orders or the Court heretofore made
should he paid and order may be entered lnsrucing
ths receivers to that effect and directing either the de-
livery TO each creditor Of note certificate for hs
amount due him, or the payment by the referee out Of
the proceeds OF sals may be determined on the settle
ment OF the orders.
do not desire to be understood directing payment
Of ali the claims stated In the schedule attached TO the
receivers petition An examination OF has led
believe that OF the claims there set forth do not
fa within the class named in the orders Of the Court
The receivers determine what claims fail within the
orders the question to whether they are properly
paid will be determined on their ina accounting Any
creditor howevermay apply to the Court at any tme
nave his claim paid II payment Is refused By the re-
cever As 20 those claims where petitions have been
presented by creditor TO the Court asking that the
receiver be directed TO pay them, the motions are
granted and the receivers directed to deliver them GER
tircGtes for the amount.