The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-12-09
/ ggCEIVER REFUSED
,.hsrt Moran a Good Manager
for Seattle Dry Dock.
..eye soos TO Be DIVORCED.
NJ. Bald win Has Not Administered
u,s.,s Estate-RecefveR for
Insurance Company.

a.,t "a the suit OF Charles Nc
- against the Seattle Dry Dock and
ss.saildinx Company
8. ease wss tried last Tuesday on the
So Of Mcdonald for receivers sp-
--,nsnt. de alleged in his complaint
q. tie corporation. in which he owns
20 north OF stock, was being mis-
- by Robert Moran. who was
- unnecessary improvements. and
- ..rssdv wasted $4,000. Judge Han
- ,ssnks this vas not the case, and says
s..u, Moran had really saved the cor
--...aan from ruin. He also ends that
& Moran did not try to .gobble" the
- lands beneath the dock. The text OF
!. secl,ion Is as follows:
a save considered in detail the several
.srss upon which this application Ia
- the general condition Of the cor
s...s.an and the interests OF the petit
- and tAs stockholders. / find that
"a re charges against the present Officers
= a. 6rv dock company of mismanags-
49, and sragd are fully answered, and .
1870 IL made Of their management
800 7 think relieves them entirely OF
i. accusation made in the btu and the
szdasiu Upon preliminary trial OF
i e. case upon on application OF this kind
a. eeart must accept az true the defense
s.si mas been made, and there exists. there
isrs. no grounds for the action. lie 10 true
~. the answer Is to bs treated as having
iat ems ysfifieation, but that one verifca-
ran IA sufficient; 10 fully meets the slieRa-
tau. az the bill and the court Will not be
authorized In taking affirmative action OF
tkis Kind to apply an extraordinary rem
sas withous clear showing OF rlgnt on
i ~ part OF the petitioner.
,sIhe particular accusations made, when
ieossd as in detail. think. have been
salsy answered and denied. il Is alleged
sxa!ns. the present manager of the con-
ssrn. Robert Moran, that he caused adds-
iona expenses TO be made IN building
tss sing TO the wharf, or In rebuilding an
Old part Of the wharf. and agreed TO pay
| ssr IL himself Now that IL denied, but
tssn II 1t were true IL appears by the show
p irx In the bill that the addison TO the
| xsarf as built under the former manage
nsns, when Alexander Allen was in
. sbarxs; i. was built under his supervision,
. ssd II he had any such understanding as
| ls claims with Mr.. Moran IL would have
ben the part OF a.good business agent
% have required Mr.. Moran TO
. nv for the Improvement when IL was
made he did not do that He
! sasd for Ii as an expense of the dry dock
company and seems to have made no
| sfort to collect 1t. II he was building 1t
| u the expense of some one else he should
| have had something more than mere
| vubai promise to pay, which could not be
| nioreed In law. do not think, as mat
| ir Of Law, that Dir. Moran ever became
krsly liable TO pay for b1ilding the
| wharf on another persons premises on the
aste promise that IL the owner OF the
a. ka Mh IA a ~
! Nv for t. It wonld be Just a. sensible for
~ 20 build house on my own farm on
| nae persons promise that II L would
| Mid a house for myself on my own
] rsmlses he wouId pay for IL. A person
| hing that sort Of thing would never ex-
| pct the promise TO DO kept.
the same thing 10 true In regard TO the
snpaid bill for lumber furnished TO ID. Z.
| Iere. That was under the former man
lgsmant Mr.. Allen not only neglected TO
teA.set the bill from Mr.. Durio during bis
ADMINISTRATION. but also neglected to take
proper steps TO protect the bill against the
sascs Of the statute OF limitations Mr.
Moran denied that he 10 ade any promise to
pay either OF these bills. In regard to
tie rent OF the loft and the use of steam
power the showing In the answer IL that
scmpsnsstion has been rendered. AZ any
;sis. the present management 10 not
| sAargeabie for neglect of the corporation's
Interests IN that regard for these things
we're ell under the former management.
The pretense that Ii is necessary to
have receiver take charge OF this cor
rorssion's property and business so as to
protect its right TO acquire title TO tide
lands BY purchase from the state when
they are appraised, is untenabis. In my
opinion. | DO not think there Is any
danger that Mr.. Moran or his associates
viii cut under the Dry Dock Company
and get these tide lands. IL Mr.. Moran
should make purchase of tide lands that
tie DR. Deck Company have right to
fafehsse be viii he ohArgeable as trustee,
and any title he acquires will inure, as
EsitaF Of Law, to the Dry Dock Company.
The failure 20 elect officers Is not
| ground for the appointment of q receiver
where Il is shown. as In this case, that the
separation Il in the hands OF acting off,
GERS Who we're eisctss and are simply hold
ag ever until their successors are elected.
he rule, tha, npon the failure 10 elect
eActrs. the court will appoint . receiver,
s9piss, according 10 my understanding OF
St saw. only In those eases where the cor
+ Fpfsifor Is left without any one to manage
~ saalrs. That il not 20 here. These
vaeers are authorised by law to continue
the management Of this business until
Der successors are elected and qualified,
iad shey are 30 acting. A stakeholder, be-
re going into court and complaining of
as matter IS = ground for the appoint
stai q receiver, should first apply TO
Hs setting trustees 10 cali a meeting and
ave an election. That has not been don
stosding 10 she showing in this bill IL
-ss nol Eppear to me that q request OF
sh kind would be useless.
These are substantially all the grounds
~ are set out; thar the corporation has
81 money through Mr. Moran's manage
set; thst money has been expended in
sse amounts for unnecessary improve
Assss, that no officers were elected last
lef. sad shat Mr.. Moran 10 intending 70
ass AZ unfair advantage in the purchase
aas lands. What have said meets all
sAess complaints except possibly. the
ven regard to the expenditures for I'M
ssenents. A vsrv full showing is made
ne answer in regard 20 what improve.
srass have been made the necessity for
1sksng them. aad the benefits that have
sai'sd 70 she CORPORATION from having
80 them. IL appears 20 me that there
seen no Encouragement. brt really
cespcrstlon has been rescued from the
~ sss condition in which it Vas ieft by
- sofsncr management The tncurring
Ns indebtedness VAS necessary TO
sssse plant that would enable the cor
Rssson 80 esrn money aud 80 accomplish
eoisets for which it was originally
sa'sd. The present management has
= successful, sni has q plant which Is
1905 OF earning money and which has
~ rad very well FOR the investment
80 tAess grounds l deny the sppliea-