The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-09-07
Northern Pacific Receivers Must
Appear in Seattle Court
AND GIVE FULL ACCOUNTING
Receivers Certificates Declared Valid
Liens as Soon as Confirmed
by the Courts.

Seattle, Wash, Sept. BY the de-
cision of Judge Gilbert concurred in by
Judge Hanford, Receivers Cakes. Payne
and Rouse must appear in the United
States court for the northern district
of Washington in this city October 2
and defend themselves against the
charges of maladministration made by
Brayton Ives, president of the North
ern Pacific. The opinion of Judge Gill
bert was read in court this morning,
and the opinion of Judge Hanford was
filed late in the afternoon. The receiv-
ers are each ordered to file in this court
bond for $10S,000 and also a report of
their actions from the time of the last
report confirmed by Judge Jenkins up
to the present. 1t is held that the acts
of the receivers are not invalid and the
5000, 900 receivers certificates are valid
liens as soon as confirmed by the re-
spective courts. BY the decision the
question of jurisdiction is settled and
the court here becomes the court of
primary jurisdiction. settling the ques-
ton of collateral attack. The second
part of the Ives application will come
up at the hearing of the order to show
cause and the question of fact as to
whether the receivers have been lax in
their administration of the trust estate
will be opened
Judge Gilbert says: 1.-THE actual pos
session of the property of an insolvent
corporation by the first court through
its receivers could extend no further
than the territorial limits of that
courts jurisdiction. The rights the re-
ceivers are accorded in courts whose
jurisdiction is exterior to that of the in
itial proceeding have their basis in
comfy. Such comfy rests upon the
fact that another court is in the actual
possession of a portion of the property,
which can not well be segregated and
which the best interests of all concerned
require to be managed as a single sys-
tenn. Here, however, it is shown that
at the time of filing this application to
remove the receivers there is no part
of the railroad line of the Northern Pa
cific Railway Company within the jur-
isdiction of the court that first appoint
ed them, and that there is in that dis
trict no personal property held in receiv-
ership. All the property that remains to
be disposed of is in other jurisdic-
lions.
1T follows from this state of facts
that the court is powerless to make an
order which affects in any way the
management or possession of any prop
erty of the corporation. No foreclosure
sales of said mortgages can be had, no
possession to purchaser can be given
until the courts which have the actual
possession of said railroad shall con-
sent thereto. In our judgment the rule
of comfy which has been invoked in
opposition to the judgment does not
l. 60.
dation of the rule is the recognition of
the right that exists in another juris-
diction. 1t is predicated upon the fact
that another has first take. and re-
tanned the possession of property It's
reason consists in the fact that the
court of initiatory proceedings has in
it's possession and must necessarily ad-
minister a portion Of the property
which a wise policy declares must not
be disintegrated. That reason does not
exist in this case. Not only does it not
exist, but many considerations lead us
to believe that a wiser, more satisfac.
tory management of a railroad may be
obtained by a court which has juris
diction over at least some of the ter.
ritory wherein the same is situated OF
where the home of the company is 10
Gated"
HANFORDS RULING.
In his opinion Judge Hanford consid
cred as parts of one proposition the
question of renting dues to Judg,
Jenkins court as the court of primary
jurisdiction and of collateral attack
The application, he said, was a direc
proceeding, and the assertion that fOl
the court here to take cognizance of thu
matter as a collateral attack was un
tenable. Want of jurisdiction apparen
on the face of record was the grounC
upon which the attack was made, ant
on such grounds the right of parties t
litigate was not concluded by any de
cree of the court whose jurisdiction
was questioned. The railroad and rea
estate of the defendant being immov
able could not be brought within tn
Jurisdiction of the Milwaukee court
nor could jurisdiction be acquired b.
taking possession of such assets a
money, bonds and other securities, o
in the cars migrating over other lines
and no consent of the parties could Civ
to a court jurisdiction that it had new
er possessed.