The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-11-21
THE LAKE SHORE soREcLosuKE.


tons sa the Company's Answer.
The attorneys for the plaintiff In the
foreclosure case of the L MON Trust Com
pany vs. the Seattle. Lake Shore & East
ern Railway, yesterday filed in the United
States circuit court, their bill of exceptions
10 the answer made by the defendant.
The Union Trust Company excerpts to
certain portions of the answer of defend
ant on the grounds of impertinence and
insnffielency. and makes application 10
sspnnae from the answer certain other
no rtions because they seek affirmative re-
IIeA If permissible at all. to be set forth by
eross bill. The plaintiff excerpts TO the
state rnent that the defendant. 10 the ut
most OF Its knowledge and belief, set
forth neither the plaintiff had due and
corpora to power TO execute the trust men,
toned and created by the mortgage and
whether the defendant had corporate
mower 10 execute the mortgage. They
srcept TO t.ae statement OF defendant set
ting forth v neither the defendant executed
and delivsred the 5,i75 bonds, referred TO
In the bill of complaint. or as To what
number of bonds IL executed and delivered,
nor as to the terms and conditions OF said
bonds: that defendant in it's answer has
not set forth what number of bonds men
toned were negotiated by the defendant.
The plaintiff asks that that portion of the
answer which AYERS that many of the bonds
were not negotiated and delivered for value,
and were not acquired by tho holders in
good faith, be expunged as imperti-
nent. Plaintiff excerpts to that portion
af the answer which sets forth as
TO whether the mortgage mentioned is the
same mortgage executed by the defend ant.
and To that portion which sets forth
whether the terms and conditions per
tsining TO the principal and interest on the
bonds, in tho bill of complaint. is truth
fully set forth. Further exception is
taken because the defendant in its answer
has not set forth whether defendant had
kept the covenants contained in the mort
gage, and whether defendant has made
default In semi-annud payments of inter
est due and payable on the bonds, due
August 1. iea5, and February !. is94.
Plaintiff excerpts TO other portions OF de-
PENDANTS answer concerning the truthful
ness Of plaintiffs bill of complaint as 90
other portions of the answer on
the ground OF impertinence. Ii also
excerpts 90 that portion of the an
swer which AYERS that the property
lie not an adequate security for the amount
of the bonds. aud that the property would
be an adequate security for the payment
of ali bonds issued according TO the condi-
tions Of thu mortgage. if the same had
been issued in number and at times as
contemplated by the true intent of the
mortgage, instead OF creating an over-issue
OF bonds through the collusion and con
snirscy of the parties who were then off,
GERS and directors of defendant. Plaintiff
further excerpts 10 that part of defendants
answer which AYERS that the authority
given by the plaintiff 10 rs solicitors Was
withou, authority in law or equity and
not within the conditions OF the mortgage,
because OF iInnertineuce.
Plaintiff further excerpts 90 six entire
paragraphs OF defendants answer on the
ground of imreftinenee. and farther ex-
eepts 10 other portions as insufficient.
evAslse and imperfect. and prays that de-
PENDANT may hr eompslled 20 pus in q fall
and sufficient snswer 10 plaintiff : bill of
complaint