Los Angeles herald., 1892-10-16
THE |NTERVENORs TOO RAPID,
The Supreme Court Decides a
Cable Road Case.
The City Water Company VS.. the
Park Commission.
Yesterdays Happenings in the Various
Coarts-Notes of Cases Acted
Upon-New Suits
Filed.

supreme court yesterday in the case OF
Russell vs.. the Pacific Railway COM
pany. defendant, and Doran and Mckee,
intervenors. 1t will be remembered
that the cable company, through Re-
ceiver Crank, applied for and was
granted permission by Judge Wade,
some weeks ago, to let contract for
paving its portion of Figueroa street.
The contract was let over the objections
of certain bondholders of the road, and
they aiterward applied to the supreme
court to stay the issuance of receivers
certificates pending the appeal. The
text of the opinion is as follows:
The property of the Pacific Railway
company was placed in the hands of the
respondent, Crank, as receiver. Prior
to the appointment of the receiver, the
company had been operating horse
car line in the city of Los Angeles, un-
der lease from the East and West Los
Angeles street Railway company, to the
predecessor of the insolvent de-
iendant. The lease provided for
the payment of an annual rental
of $4,000, but no payments
have ever been made on account thereof,
and the receiver is unable to make any
payment on account of the lease. The
municipal authorities have recently or
dered Figueroa street to be paved, and
under the law the horse-car company Is
required to pave between the tracks and
for two feet on the outside thereof. The
receiver having no funds to do the work,
presented petition to the court below,
accompanied by contract for the paw
| ing, and providing for payment in cer1
tifcates to be issued by the receiver OF
| the insolvent railway company. The
| intelvenors, who hold large amount of
| first mortgage bonds on the cable line,
protested against the issuance OF the
certificates to pay for paving the street,
and asked that in case the certificates
were issued they should be made subor-
dinate to the liens securing the bonds
held by them. The court denied their
petition, and directed the acceptance OF
bid for the work, and approved the
contract providing for the issuance OF
receivers certificates. To this order the
intervenors excepted; bill of excep-
tion was presented and allowed; notice
of appeal was served and fled and two
undertakings on appeal, each in the
sum of $500, were given.
There is an application for writ of
supersedeas to stay the issuance OF the
certificates pending the appeal. We
think that the application is premature.
The court has done nothing thus far ex-
cept to approve the contract entered
into by the receiver for the performance
of the work. That contract provides
that: "All payments under this con-
tract are to be made in cash, or at the
option of the party of the second part,
in receivers certificates issued by the
| court. This contract is made
by the parties hereto with the express
understanding that the same is subject
to the approval OF the judge of the gu.
perior court"
The court has not directed the iesu-
ance of any certificates, nor has it re-
fused to declare that the receivers GER
tifcates, if issued, shall be subordinate
to the lien created by the deed OF trust.
Until the certificates have been issued,
and the court has adjudicated that they
shall not be subordinate to the lien OF
the intervenors, the latter have no
grounds of complaint. The application
is denied. PATERSON. }.
We concur:
MCFARLAND. j.
HARRISON, j.
GARoUTTE, j.
SHARPsTEIN, j.