The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-08-18
IT'S A CASE in POINT
The 0akeS Receivers Run Again.t
Another Little Snag.
LIMITS TO THEIR POWERS
They Are Placed Under Restraints
Which Can Be Turned to Ac-
count In the Case to Be
Heard In Seattle.
Special Dispatch to the STANDARD

Special Dispatch to the STANDARD
ST. Paul, Aug. 17.-Anothcr sensational
chapter IN the Northern Pacific receiver
Ha.7 case was opened In a decision to-
day by the United States court of ap-
peals In Chicago. THIS Is the court OF
hnal jurisdiction. The opinion was pre-
pared by Judge Caldwell aud assaniei
10 by Judges SaHoorn and Thayer. Re-
ferring to The original appointment OF
Northern Pacific receivers by Judge Jen-
klns, the opinion says: 1T is obvious
thai X an Individual or private business
corpora ton had conveyed lis property 70
another lrr tho same purpose and upon
the same trusts that the court was asked
20 take this property and did take H..
the law would have stamped the convey
aHce a. one made 10 hinder and delay
creditors. and fraudulent and VOID for
that reason" UnIer any circumstances
this would be strong language. When
used by she court OF highest jurisdiction
IN the United States II will undoubtedly
be made tho basis OF the Ives interest In
the Northern Pacific In a suit 10 have
the appo!n tment OF the receivers vacated.
The decision will he OF immense import
ance 10 Judge Petit In the case he Is
now pushing against the Northern Pa
cinc In Seritle.
Tho language Of the court was used in
the decision brought originally by
Charles Scott against the Northern Pacific.
ON the suit he recovered Judgment for
5,li5.5O. Satisfaction of the Judgment
was resisted on the ground that the road
was in che hands OF receivers and Scott's
Judgment was thrown out by the lower
Dakota court on this ground. Right here
another very important legal question
was finally settled. The decision was
largely on this point, the court OF ap-
pcals deciding that. although the Dakota
court was an auxiliary TO the cour;
which origirnlly appointed receivers. q
st!ll had full powels 10 satisfy Judgment:
ami all In the collection OF debts on al
such property OF the company as was
not embraced In the mortgage under
which the receivers were appointed.
This decision Is OF such great import
anee and runs 80 counter 10 accepted
procedure. that Cts main point Is giver
below In full: when a bal Is filed tc
foreclose n mortgage. the court may
upon proper showing appoint a receiver
TO take into his possession and contro
khe mortgaged property. but the jurisd!c
tion possessed by a court OF chancery 4
foreclose a mortgage and appoint re
ceiver for the mortgaged property pend
Ing the foreclosure. gives II no Jlrisi-c
| Ton OF power 10 seize OF tahc into Gus
tody or control through a receiver o
Otherwise. the properly OF the debto
which Is not covered by the mortgage
Nor can the court In such a suit right
fully make any order that VIII prevent
hinder or delay tho other creditors o
the mortgage or from aibjectsng tn,
properly not included In the mortgage 4
the payment OF their debts. n Is cleai
therefore that so far as relates 20 tn,
receivership In the foreclos.ng sur. tn,
interviewer was entitled to an order dis
charging the land mentioned from th'
custody of the receivers and grantin,
him leave to sell the eamc on execution
to satisfy his Judgment"
The remarks quoted above were calle,
Incidentally, but indicate beyond all ques
ton what The judges will decide n rh'
legality Of tho appointment Is called Int
question,