The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1891-06-25
THE DISTINGUISHED EAST
TEXAS LAWYERS IN THE
RECEIvERSHIP CASE.
HISTORY OF THE RECEIvER>HIp.
Messrs. Bonner: Eddy and Finley Connec-
ton With It-What Jay Gould
Had to Say in the Matter.

sumed by the legislative committee at
10 a. IN. today. When called to order,
Major R. G.. Lowe, vice president and
general manager of A. H. Belo q Co.,
publishers of the Galveston-Dallas
News, took the witness chair and by
permission of the COMMITTEES, desired
to make statement.
Colonel Herndon was called and
sworn The direct examination was
conducted by Judge Alexand. Wit
ness stated that Gould's suit against
the International and Great Northern
railway company was filed on the 5th
or 9th of February. 1889, in the district
court at Tyler. The first term day of
court was the nth.
H did not anticipate filing the suit.
He first began filing pleading in in
tervention in behalf of the Missouri,
Kansas and Texas on the 18th of Feb
ruary. The file mark of the clerk of
the court was placed on the paper.
The pleadings at the time did not con-
tain all the exhibit he wanted to
make, but the case was urgent and he
wanted to gain time. Received the
data desired, prepared the petition for
Intervention on the night of the 18th.
On the 18th withdrew the former petit
ton and filed the petitions and plead
ings as they appear on the record.
He was not aware that an interven-
ton would be filed. But when the
Missouri, Kansas and Texas interven-
ton was filed, he was anxious it should
have place as early as possible. Was
not prepared to state the contingency
for such action, but would state it did
not arise. In an action for receiver
ships the right of priority dates from
the time of filing, where the court has
in contemplation the appointment of
a receiver. 1t was established in equity
that the first should have priority and
e., were entitled to receiver or receivers
Where there is consolidation of inter
ests involved, the court should con
slider the rights of all, otherwise not
He never knew Of but one such case.
In this case he courts heard the APP
plications together. Priority in filing
OuShu w SiFC VIC W lll6
party or parties making it in the ap.
pointment of receivers. He filed the
intervention for Cross 81 Eddy re-
ceivers of the Missouri, Kansas and
Texas February II, 1890 He rep
resented Gross & Eddy, but was not
their attorney in fact. The case of Jay
Gould had been called. All had lett
the court room except Mr.. Chiffon and
one or two others. Was not there
himself but was advised of the ac-
ton and entered the court room
at o'clock but was not prepared to
intervene, becaused not advised of the
value of the stock, or whether it had
ever been transferred. His impression
was it had. He filed short plea to
time and informed Cross and Eddy and
they confirmed his action. He did not
think he knew at the time that they |
held title to the stock of the lnterna-
tional and Great Northern. When he |
learned who held the stock he pre-
pared the bill in intervention. In the
meantime Mr., Cross, one of the re-
ceivers of the MISSOURI, Kansas and
TEXAS, accompanied by Mr.. Foster, ar
rived and approved of his action.
On the 10th, default day, he aban
doned the plea, and Foster fled bill
in intervention. He was then attor
ney for the Missouri, Kansas and
Texas in Texas. Witness declined to
state whether he had communicated |
with Simon Sterne, as it would be a |
violation of legal ethics to do so.
The witness was then requested to |
give detailed narrative of the litiga- |
tion leading up to and resulting in the |
appointment of the receivers of the |
International and Great Northern |
railroad
Witness stated there were matters |
in connection with that which were |
covered by the obligations of an at
torney that he would not evolve and
he would touch upon the privileges |
and rights of attorneys. Mr.. Beach |
stated his position correctly when he |
said his mouth was shut" That was
the case with the witness in some fea-
lures of the case, but outside of this he |
would state the case as fully and cor |
rectly as his memory would serve him |
and would touch high as well as low
places.
Col. Herndon then gave an exhaust
I've detailed statement of all litigation
had, which led up to the receivership
and the appointment of Bonner and
VIC vi
Finley and appointment of Eddy
and why Finley resigned and the rea-
sons for the appointment Of Eddy.
He said he prepared the Intervention
of the M. X. & II. Ry. company, No.
1888. entitled Jay Gould VS.. Interna-
tional and Great Northern Railway
company.
The bill was fled on the 18th of Feb
ruary, 1891. and re filed on the 10; that
other interventions were filed in the
same suit. The cause was called Oh
appearance day, Jay Gould desiring
alignment while the intervenors pressed
for the appointment of receivers, on
the grounds alleged in the petition as
holding and controlling majority OF
the stock. On Appearance Gay he
asked that the case be postponed one
day, which was agreed t.. 4
The case was adjourned over an
other day. That night occurred the
conversation between him and Judge
McCord about Col. Bonner. Re bad
heard after court adjourned that two