The Big Stone Gap post. [volume] (Big Stone Gap, Wise County, Va.) 1892-1928, 1893-09-07


the company complained Of. And
also we must remember that tl,erules
applicable to the appointment of re-
cnivcrs, in eases where bonds are So
cured bv III, ordinary trust. where u"
special aud restrictive stipulati';
are found relative to foreclosure pro-
cecdings, do not apply to this case.
In the deed of trust made by the de-
PENDANT to secure the bonds held ~
compliments the requirements | he,
quoted are found, and they we g
placed there with the knowledge a: d
approval of complaintants, IN order
TO enhance the value of the bonds Sc
cured, aid the credit OF the Company
and enable the holders o. the bonds
to disposed of them advantageously.
They are part of the consideration Of
fered by the Company and accepted
by the bondholders when the con-
tract was made, and they are as val
id as the other provisions Of the
trust, and as binding on the bond
holders, as those other stipulations
are on the Company.-State Of Mary
land V. Northern Central Z. Co, IS
Nd. 1913.
This requirement Of the deed of
trust has been entirely ignored by the
complaints as bondoders, although,
in the absence of proof showing
fraud or mismanagemento on the part
of the company it is binding upon
them. They have not given the no.
tee in writing to the trustee. OF the
alleged default. nor has any request
to institute suit been made Gy one
fifth Of the bondhol,jcrs OF the out
standing bonds, and neither has the
trustee been offered security against
costs and charges. No ground what
ever is shown why the court should
ignore the manner of proceedings
provided by the parties themselves
for their mutual protection. ] there
fore hold that as houiEol.jcrs COM
plainants on In" case rs n"w made
have no standing in this Court. AMI
cannot have until they have first OK
hausted the remedies provided for
them in the trust, or have shown
their inability to do so because OF the
fault of the defendant, or It's man
a~cncnt. The complainant4 claim
that they and the interests they rep
resent own over one half Of he cap
itaI stock OF the Big Stone Cap In
provement Company. This is de-
MED in the answer, defendant insist
ing that complainants Go not own
over one-tentl part Of such stock.
In order to sustain the allegations
of the bill in this regard complaint
ants insist that tie 1896 shares of
said stock now owned Ivy the "Eir-
ginia Tennessee IL Carolina Steel u
Iron Company" should be with them
as opposed to the present manage
ment of the defendant Company. 1t
appears that at the last two meetings
of the Stockholders of the defendant,
there were controversies relative to
the representation Of sail stock, it
being claimed by complaiuantS that
J. N. Bailey as receiver Of the Viz
sinia Tennessee Il Carolina Steel IL
Iron Company was entitled to relre-
sent and vote the stock owned by
said Company, while other stock
holders held that Haskell aud Conk
liz were the legally appointed rccciv-
ers of the Company, and that }. i.
Richmond, it's Attorney, was the
proper person to represent and vote
it's stock. This Court in this pro-
cecding will not determine the ques-
ton involving the rights of those
claiming to be receivers of said Com
pany, nor will it decide who was en-
titled to represent he stock held by
that Company iii the Big Stone Gap
Improvement Company. The deciss
ion of those matters would not dis
pose of the question now in contrO-
versy, in fact they have no proper
connection with the present issue.
Complainants by this contention
seek to show that a majority of the
shares of stock Of defendant liz OPP
pose to it's present management, and
in favor of the course pursued by