San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-06-23
MASTER WASH'S REPORT
1T WAS FILED IN THE DISTRICT
COURT YESTERDAY,
He Decides That the Debts Incurred
Prior and up to January 81 Are
Debts of the Construction Com
pany and Debts Since Then Are
Debts of the Railway Company.

F. ii. Wash, Esq, master in
chancery Of the San Antonio aud
Gulf Shore receivership, filed his
report in the Thirty.seventh Dis
trict court yesterday afternoon
The questions that were to be de-
cided are as follows:
First-Were and are the debts in
Cured for the construction of de-
PENDANTS line Of railway, primari-
ly, as between the Railway and the
Construction company, the debt of
the Railway company or the Con-
struction company?
Second-How many OF the first
mortgage bonds Of the defendant
Railway company are in possession
Of the Construction company, and
have they complied with the con-
ditions OF their contract so as to
entitle them to receive, or have re-
ceived, 1850, 900 OF the defendant
Railway company's first mortgage
bonds?
The master reports his conclu-
sion as to the essential and mate
rial facts established in the inves-
tigstion to be as follows:
That on the 9th day OF April,
1894, the San Antonio and Gulf
Shore Railway company, by its
then president, William Davis, did
make and enter into a contract
with Samuel Massey. Cyrus Bald
win and Samuel Foster, known as
s. Massey & Co.
That in this contract (known as
the Massey contract the contrac.
tors agreed to build and construct
the San Antonio and Gulf Shore
railway, and to furnish material
therefor, and pay for the labor, &C.
cording to certain plans and specifi-
cations attached to said contract.
That they were to receive from
the Railway company, in payment
for said contract, the first mortgage
bonds Of the San Antonio and Gulf
Shore Railway company, to the
amount OF $1,000 Per mile.
The master is OF the opinion
that the contract with the
so.called construction company
was valid and binding contract
between the San Antonio & Gulf
Shore Railway company Of the one
part and John Ireland, J. G. Davis,
John Scott, George Dullnig and H.
o. Engelke of the other part.
That whatever name they may
be known by is immaterisl; that
that contract which they signed
constituted them partners, and
has all the requisites OF partner
ship for the particular transactions
within the purview OF the contract.
That the position OF VIM. Davis,
as president OF the Railway COM
pany and agent and representative
OF the Construction company, is
position that the law does not ia
vor, but one which, where both
parties consent to same Gas in this
instance) it does not forbid, and
that, therefore, the contract is not
rendered illegal.
That the contract between the
Railway company by William
Davis, president, and Massey and
Davis, being made for the benefit
of the Construction company by
its agent and representative, as
we'll as the agent OF the Railway
company, was in reality the con-
tract OF the socalled Construction
company.
And this brings up the further
question, whether two firms. hav-
ing a common member, lin this
case ]. G. Davis, can contract with
each other? The master is OF the
opinion that there never was any
prohibition of their so contracting,
though at common law they could
not sue each other in legal &C.
ton.
The master is OF the opinion that
the Railway company, through
VIM. Davis, in making the con-
tract with Massey & Davis, after
having made the so-called Con-
struction compauy's contract,
| did not in manner an
null the said so.called Con-
structiou company's contract, or
change to relative liabilities OF the
parties said contract, as fixed by
said instrument.
The master is Of the opinion, and
so reports to the honorable court,
that with the qualifications herein
after set forth, the first question
referred should be answered as fol-
lows:
The debts incurred for the con-
struction OF the San Antonio and
Gulf Shore railroad company, up
TO January p, 1895, at which time
the railroad assumed control OF
construction, are primarily, as be-
tween the railway and the construc
ton company, so-called, the debts
of the construction company.