The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-27
IRON HALL HEARINGS
Substance of Judge Klein's Opin-
ion i'm the Missouri Case.
Parallel Case Being Argued in Phila-
delphia-James Nesbitt Sues for
False Imprisonment.

In his opinion rendered in the Iron Hall
last Saturday Judge Klein, of St
Louis. decided that the Missouri receiver
is auxiliary to Indiana and ordered the re-
ceiver to pay over the money collected
from the Missouri branches to receiver
Failey 1t is estimated by the local off,
Gals that Missouri will pay into the In
diana fund from $4,000 to $4,000
In his opinion of Saturday Judge Klein
held that the fund in the hands of the Mis-
souri, receiver is the property Of the cor
poration itself; that it does not belong to
the local branches and not intended to
be distributed by them. He also contended
that the money did not belong to the MEM
bers who contributed it except that they
are entitled to share in the distribution
within the Jurisdiction of the court The
court said that there could be no doubt
that a corporation such as the defendant
was could be best wound up and its assets
more fairly and equitably administered
and distributed in one court than in
dozen. He thought that the place of its
home and domicile is the place where adj
minstration should be had upon its estate.
and its property in other Jurisdictions
should be drawn to the principal receiver
to be by him distributed with exact equal
souri, claimants would share ratably and
according to their claims in the distribu-
ton OF the whole estate and he thought
that there would be sufficient time for
every claim presented to the local receiver
to be presented to receiver Failey Us time
TO allow the claimants to participate in
the dividend already ordered by the Su-
perior Court of Marion county.
In Philadelphia Saturday a parallel case
to the st. Louis suit was argued before
Judge Biddle, in Common Pleas Court
No. l. The main point in the case was the
claim of receiver Failey to have the Penn
sylvania funds turned over TO him for gen
eral distribution. The funds consist prin-
ciDally of reserve funds which arose under
a provision of the laws Of the Supreme
Sitting requiring 20 per cent of each as
sessment to be set aside by the. branch
organization and to be considered the prop
erty of the Supreme Sitting The argu-
ment of r. O. Hawkins, of Indianapolis,
was that the disputed funds belonged to
all the members of the order, and that the
only way in which justice could be adj
ministered would be to put all the money
a pro rata division. Mr.. Hawkins ex-
planned that the fund in indianapolis now
amounts to about $4,000, and there being
branches in twenty-four different States,
If the fund was distributed in each State
some creditors would receive more than
others and great injustice would be
worked.
The attorneys representing the Pennsyl-
vania receiver contended that funds in the
State or an lnSolVent foreign corporation
should be distributed among the creditors
Of the State who had created the fund be-
fore any part of it should be RENTED to
the receiver of the domicile of the corpora
ton. 1t was urged that the law of Penn
sylvania under a recent decision of the Su-
preme Court shows that a receiver of a
foreign corporation appointed in foreign
jurisdiction and not recognized in the Penn
sylvania jurisdiction because a receiver Of
the Supreme Sitting has been appointed
has no more standing TO institute pro-
ceeding in Pennsylvania than foreign
executor administrator has to institute
legal proceedings, although there was no
doubt that either a foreign executor, re-
ceiver or administrator might defend a pro-
ceeding in that jurisdiction. The court has
reserved it's decision.