The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-06-07
SHOR4-LIuE
RECEIVERSHIP.
CONTINUED from Page u

n Continued from Page II
: order was made out at all it be 81
modified as TO compel the plaintiffs
through Mr.. Egan, to take all the roaC
> or none and thus prevent a splitting
up OF the Oregon Short Line and UtaI
Northern itself
Inc lines Of the Oregon Short Line
ana Utah Northern run through three
Juulclal circuits, that of Judge Gilbert
OF oregon; that of Judge SanbOrn OF
81. Paul, and that of Judge Merritt
IN Otah. Judge Gilbert's court is the
court or primary Jurisdiction. and
Inere the first order was made, as in
olcated above. Judge Sanborn followed
sulI and made an order identical
IA every respect with Judge Gilbert's
order and TO make the matter COM
pete IL Is necessary for Judge Merritt
70 make similar order in regard to
me portion of the line in Utah. 1t is
OF course, not incumbent on Judge
merritt to follow the rulings of the
9ther Two Judges, and if he should
decide differently, which he may or
may not do. it would put another
Phase on the whole business. ANYWAY
tne whoie contention yesterday cen
tefed on TWO points. viz: the granting
or otherwise of power to the receiver
1 10 issue receivers certificates to an
on the existing bonds and in case the
/ receiver is appointed and the power
granted to issue certificates, viii it be
optional with the plaintiff. the trust
company, TO take over any or all of
/ the hVe branches composing the whole
oregon Short Line & Utah Northern
road?
Mr.. Storey Opens.
Attorney Mansfield Storey. of Boston.
! opened the arguments on behalf of the
American Loan and Trust company.
! he stated the case by reciting the
history of the issue of the several
/ mortgages and the subsequent events
! IN their order substantially as given
ABOVE Counsel argued that the con-
troll given the Union Pacific by the
franc arrangement prevented the
snort Line from getting its share of
the business with other roads. and
stated that this was the condition
r,5n IN IN october, 1898, application was
MADE by the Union Pacific stockholders
Tor receiver, which application was
granted, placing the main line and all
IT'S branches in the hands of the re-
celVerS. The Union Pacific has broken
us contract with the Short Line by
1alllng to provide funds to pay the
operating expenses and the interest
on the mortgages as provided in the
traInc arrangement, and therefore if
mad no further claim on the Short Line
The Union Pacific had failed 10 nav
Ior the privileges granted by the Short
Line, and consequently those rrivi-
IeSes were Withdrawn and the loan
company demanded its rights urder
the mortgage
Counsel argued that the Short Line
should be free to operate its lines in
dependently of the influence of that
party to the traffic arrangala ant, which
had broken its agreement. The two
interests We're adverse to each other
ana the operating of both the Union
racine and the Short Line could NOT
adVantageously be left in ,he same
hands. 1t had been found ract esarv
to lop off other branch lines Of The
Union Pacific, but the expense OF the /
Union Pacific was the same and the
snort Line was compelad u raw a /
heavier proportion JhareOf thar, Eefore
mis- the loan and trus- COMPANY Oh I
Jected to and asked the Cour4 IN
grant relief in the manner stated This /
had been done in the two other III
dlcial circuits and similar act;t.a was [
asked as regards the proDor-i1n of the I
line IN Utah AS to the first m ,rtgage.
the trust company, seeing he intert st /
on 1t had not been paid, had the right
to pay it and act as trustee under its
own second mortgage
Inc trust company offered to nav
TINS interest and prayed for termina-
ton OF the Union Pacific receivership
Tor the Snort Line and for the appoint
ment OF separate receiver
Mr.. Thurston-We are vi11ine 70
Withdraw If you pay, but you don't:
you simply ask the court to raise the
money for you by the issue Of receive
ers' certificates; you don't offer to pay
ii yourselves.
Mr.. StOrey-We simply ask the co,1rt
TO allow US to pay it out of our own
property, which we have a right to do
Mr.. Storey then recited the history of
the litigation in Portland and in St
Paul, and urged his honor to make an
orGer similar to that made by Judge
Gilbert at Portland in the court of
jurisdiction.
Judge Merritt-DO you argue that
because an order has been made in one ;
court, the other should follow it. right
or wrong? If SO, this hearing is a
waste of time.
Mr.. Storey-No, your honor We ask
this order because we have a legal
right to it, 81
Mr.. Pierce-Are you ready to state
your position as to the Utah Southern !
extension? Do you reserve the option
20 take it or not? 0--
Mt Storey-We ask an order per-
hitting us to take it, and reserve an &,
option. an !
Mr.. Pierce-Then you would leave !
I you saw fit, that section under the :
present receivers?
AAOAO III liOI SlOl ana MI. Storey :
disagreed as to what occurred AT ST . /.
'auI, in court, Senator Thurston re-
marking that they had disagreed en- I
'tten that it was not likely they Womb l
gree now AT this Mr. Storey renlied 7
hey DID agree upon that proposition. :
Judge Merritt made several inouir.
es as to the intention to leave ont (
he Utah Southern Extension. and :
vas Informed such was not the in z
ention, but there was no direct assur- :
Lnce that if the order was granted /
hat section would be taken by the I
1oan company 7
Mr.. Storey pointed out that as to Y
he Utah Southern Extension. the s
Gan company held the first mortgage. V
lie insisted that when the Union Pa C
lfic request for receivership in the
Jtah court was granted, the condi- c
ion was identical with that in which a
he Loan company now found itself. i
Mr.. Kellogg-We have the right to +
n order to give us the option of pay i
ng the interest on the bonds on either ,
f the extensions and taking possess Il
ion of the road or having a receiver =
ppointed. II
Attorney E. p. Sanborn. r
e. P. Sanborn, representing Oliver :
mes second and other first mortgage
o0dhO1darS followed Ar