The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-05-24
IRON HALL COMPLICATIONS
Supplemental Complaint Filed TO Pro-
long the General Receiyership.
Insolvency aad Confusion Of Affairs Set Up
Gathering Of the Remnants of the Su-
preme Sitting-Wslksr Wroih.
NEW COMPLAINT FILED.

In view OF the efforts to reorgasize the
Iron Hall and get 1t out OF the receivers
hands. the RECEIVERS attorneys. In the name
of the original plaintiffs yesterday after
noon filed a supplemental complaint. AL
ieging the hopeless insolvency OF the order,
and setting mp facts which have occurred
since the filing of the amended complaint
last August upon which Receiver Failey
was appointed. The supplemental COM
plant is q lengthy document. and sets
forth the action taken In Iron Hall affairs
in the various States W here any legal action
has been taken. and in several cases the
action of single branches acting independ-
emily. The supplemental complaint al
leRes that after the appointment of the
receiver here q receiver was appointed
at St. Louis for the State OF Missouri
TO collect and distribute the assets of the
order in that State. Notwithstanding this
fact, it il alleged that several of the
branches in that State refused to recognize
the authority of the receiver there appoint
ed. and have paid over to Receiver Failey
the funds belonging to such branches The
members of the ST. Louie branch have paid
over TO the receiver there appointed all
the funds of the branch. and he now has
IN his hands S60. COO belonging 20 the order.
which he claims he is authorized to pay ont
upon final distribution TO the members in
the State of Missouri. while Receiver Farley
claims that the money should be paid over
to him, and by him distributed, and
claims shall be presented. held. determined
and. II allowed, paid under the order OF the
court here.
1t alleges that at about the time of the
a moi I'm nf ha harA
were several attachment suits brought
against the order in the State of Michigan
and also a cult Tor the appointment OF re-
celyer begun IN the city OF Detroit. A re-
ceiver was there appointed under an order
of court which left It undetermined
whether the funds By him collected should
be distributed By the Michigan courts ex-
cluslveIy among the creditors and members
OF tho State OF Michigan OF turned over 10
Receiver Failey and the matter still rests
IN that way. In the State Of Ohio. lt is a.
legged. several receivers were appointed IN
different counties. but no general receiver
for the entire state has been appointed.
The different receivers appointed in that
State have proceeded In various ways to
collect the assets of the order. but no steps
have been taken toward distribution OF
the funds In PhiladelDhia o receiver was
appointed for the State of Pennsy lv enia
with power to collect funds ubject to the
rights. ii any, of Receiver Failey to require
an accounting ot the money SO collected.
FUNDS IN PENNSYLVANIA.
The Pennsylvania receiver, it is alleged,
has collected $500. coo and taken possession
of account books. papers and records of the
several branches In that State. At the time
of the appointments of the receiver there
was on deposit IN q certain Philadelphia
bank 100000 deposited by Mark c. Davis
. short time before the bank made on as
signment for the benefit of it's creditors.
The defendant order was the principal
creditor. there being only about $50 600 in
debtedness TO other depositors. The as
signeo of the bank has collected q large
amount of the assets preparatory TO dis
trlbution. but tho percehtage that 1t will
be able To pay is yet unknown. In New
Jersey receiver was appointed. but the
question of accountability to Receiver
Faiiey or independent action on the part of
the New Jersey receiver was left unsettled.
In that State several of the branches had
the smouns held IN tEeir reserve
fund under provision in the con-
stitution that the branches might do
this or invest the fund through their
trustees for the benefit of the Supreme Sit
ting. 1t Is alleged that there was paid
over TO Supreme Cashier Davis in this way
by branches In that State the sum OF $10.-
600. In the State of Mary land it is alleged
that n receiver ~as appointed and has col
1ected assets To the amount of 500, and
that In this State the question of accounta-
bility 10 Receiver Failcy was also left un-
determined. In Virginia suits IN the
nature of attachment and for the appoint
ment of receiver were sustained, but the
question TO the rights OF the attaching
creditors as between themselves and Re-
ceiyer Failey was left unsettled. The re-
eeiver appointed IN Delaware has collected
the assets of the order. but the plaintiffs
are not Informed. they allege. as to what
disposition had been made Of the funds
collected. In Tennessee. after the appoint
ment of a receiver. attachment suits were
brought by certain mem bers and creditors,
and these suits were afterwards removed
TO the federal court. and are now pending
inthat court.
In New York two receivers were ap-
pointed. one in the Supreme Court at New
York city and the other in the Supreme
Courtat BingbsmtOn. The appointments
In New York. it is alleged. were made at the
iDsIigation of several members of the Su-
preme Sitting who had been IN attend ance
upon the hearing in this city, in August,
when Receiver Failey was appointed. The
two receivers appointed for the State of
Now York became involved in litigation
between themselves as TO which was legal
Is entitled to act. During this litigation
several branches accounted for funds In
their hands TO Receiver Farley, some ac-
counted 10 the Binghnmton receiver
and others to the New York city
receiver. The Supreme Court in gen.
eral tsrm decided that the receiver
appointed at Binghsmton was entitled to
act. and ordered the other 10 turn over all
funds, accounts, etc.. in his possession TO
the receiver appointed at BInghamton. and
enjoined him from further exercising the
functions of receiver. In Massachusetts,
the receiver 10 engaged In collecting the
assets. but the question OF his accounts-
bility to Receiver Fsiley Ia still undeter-
mined. In Connecticut several suits were
begun. but one receiver was appointed for
the entire State. and is now engaged in
collecting the assets, and the question of
his accountability to Receiver Failey is still
undetermined. In this State several of
the branches assumed TO act Independently
and distribute the funds in their pos
session, but these acts have not been
recognized by the receiver there. In Rhode
Island SUIT Is pending in the federal court
for the appointment of q receiver. In the
States of Vermont New Hampshire and
Maine suits are pending in the State courts
Tor the appointments of q receiver. Several
branches IN various states where there
were but few branches situated have paid
over 20 Receiver Failey the funds IN their
hands. and many branches are willing to
do so upon final decree entered herein.
adJudgin2 and assuring them that they
would share pro rata in the assets now ana
hereafter coming into Receiver Failey's
hands. and many of the courts and receiv-
ers have expressed desire to remit to this
court for equal distribution the funds IN
their charge according to the rules of
equity. The complaint alleges that the
plaintiffs believe that under the rules of
comfy existing between different States
IN matters OF this kind. and inasmuch as
.cs..<sz@sz.z-zz.-z=zz-z-k