Grand Rapids herald., 1893-11-02

sSs s1eEieg aad ~ ne hsdaos q Tact
- lae esart
TIE A.signne's coDducl
So fxr a. the slieged srongl1l co1daet
q he s<slEnee "a aDaeernsd. u relates %
tho IsEtlcuiAas First Il PROPOSES 70
diskFitote the zsssts npon TIE sssumpr
aon ~ tie validity u the ulortgsgess
snd second, il aftempts % efsds fhs
iaFi<lict.on q fhis court % nadsrtak.
inx through the gniss - . suit hssins
na l=xsfi .. 4te pcrpose 20 get undsr cover
a another court A - the tFst ground
there appears q have besn DO such
wrong n the paFposs alleged Too
the ,r~assns above stated; Il being
heId b, the court that these mortgages
are valid. it follows a. Logical
coass<uencs that tho inte0tion Of the
szagnss % reeognlze them Was not
wrongfuL la regard 10 the sseond. u
there Was 4 covert purpose OF the KIND
imputed the pertoruanee itseif bore no
fruit IL accomplished nothing. as 1
have already explained. and no injury 70
ths eompiainsnts resulted from Il The
most that could 10 szid of y h that 10
did not indicate proper sense Of the
rights of outside creditors ana the
methods Of Justice due 90 them. hut
what 10 of the most inpoFtanes. there -
no allegation in this ban that the az
signss proposes to make any dispos.tion
of the property in its hands unauthor-
ized b. lzu. II the mortgages are valid.
In x2s urged upon the argument that
the proposed sale Of the property Ia
lump would szcrifee II. but there 10
rothinx on this subject advanced BY the
biIl Its whole scope - limited TO the
seeking OF relief against the mortgages
a. prior securities. and IL 10 alleged IN
the bill that II the property we're sold In
the way that assigned property usually
is there would be nothing for the unss-
cured creditors IL this be % there 70
no substantial equity 10 protect unless
the moEtgages can be oyerthrovn.
Suggestions - 60 sale.
There Is no allegation IN the bill that
the assignee contemplates any misman-
agemsnt II the property or any mode OF
sale injurious 10 the creditors or unau-
shorized by law, but IL 10 stated In ath-
davits that il 10 proposed TO sell the as
sets in q lump. subject 10 the mortgages
And as these are in part Tor contingent
liabilities IL would seem 10 be course
which you'd seriously ieopardize theob-
tanning Of just price for the property at
the sale and for furnishing grave reasons
for considering whether IL would not be
judicious that the sale should take place
under such circumstances that clear
title could be given to the purchaser the
proceeds afterwards TO be marshalled
according 20 the equities OF the parties
That this can be done in a case where
ali the parties are before the court was
held by me In the case OF Converse va
the Michigan Dairy company In the
Forty fifth Federal Reporter at page Is.
upon the authority OF cases in the su-
preme court Of the United States there
cited A sale made in that way would
serve 10 protect the assignee from
charges Of misfeasance which may here
after arise il the interests Of parties are
seriously injured by the sale OF the kind
alleged 70 be in contemplation. These.
however. are suggestions merely. There
10 not in this bill any adequate founda-
tion for that proceeding. And the
grounds upon which il was in fact filed
being negatived by the evidence the
motion Tor q receiver and injunction
fails
The statute makes il obligatory upon
the assignee il il offers the property at
public auction TO accept a bid OF one
half OF the appraised value. IL no more
is offered This seem an extraordinary
provision. but il the property Is to be
sold by the assignee. as such, the court
has no power to avoid the statute. And
taken altogether the situation Of the
creditors is one hemmed about with
legal difficulties which produce a re-
suit not altogether satisfactory to the
court.
An order will be entered denying the
motion for a receiver and injunction as
indicated by the opinion.