Cottonwood report. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1893-1901, 1895-08-02
CONFIRMED
Supreme Court Sustains the
Transfer of Oregon Pacific.

supreme NouTC ouSIai1S
Transfer of Oregon Pacific.
THE SYNOPSIS or THE DECISION
In the Absence OF evidence - TO In41
adequacy Of Price. This Is the
n only Course Open.
Salem, July 24.-In the supreme
court today in the case of the Farmers
Loan & Trust Comany, as trustees, re-
spondent, VS.. the Oregon Pacific Rail
way Company, appellant, on appeal
from Benton county, the Judgment of
the lower court was affirmed, the opln-
ion being by Judge Moore. After re-
citing the we'll known history OF the
case in its various stages and discus
sing adversely various legal TECHNICAL
ties urged against confirmation OF the
sale, the court sustains the action OF
Judge Fullerton, and then comes to
the final objection, the inadequacy of
the bid, which is handled in the fol-
lowing manner:
"The most important contention is
that the property and franchises offered
for sale were of the value of $3,000,-
900, that the rails, rolling stock and
miscellaneous property alone, not in
Guiding the land or buildings, were
worth $3.50, 900, and that the bid of
800, 900 is so grossly inadequate as to
shock the conscience and raise the in
ference of unfairness, fraud, mistake
or surprise.
1.-THE uniform holdings of the au-
thorities in Marlett VS.. Warwick, IL
N. j., E., settles that mere inadequacy
of price, where the parties stand on an
equal footing, and where there are no
confidential relations between them is
not of itself sufficient to set aside a
sale, unless the inadequacy is so gross
as to furnish proof of fraud, or to shock
the Judgment or conscience. In the
case at the bar, it is not claimed that
the parties did not stand on an equal
footing; that there were any confiden-
or that there is any proof of fraud, and
hence the inadequacy sufficient to set
aside the sale must be so gross as to
shock the conscience.
"We have examined the transfer be-
fore us in vain to find any evidence OF
the value of the said property and fran
chises. The receiver, upon his appoint
came to his possession, but he does not
appraise single article or give value
in gross, except of some unused ma.
terial on hand. There was no evidence
before the trial court of the value, and
it would be extremely difficult for us
to conclude that the bid was made
quate, until we have some evidence
based. 1t is said that some experts
J were appointed by committee Of the
J bondholders to examine the property
and appraise it's value, but we canno
> find that they were ever appointed b.
) or made report to the courts upol
D this important subject. 1t does appear
however, from the report of J. w
? to take account of the receipts and ex
' penses of the defendant company, unde
Q the receivers management, that for tn
: period of about fourteen months prio
Q to January /, 1892, the lines of tn
r railroad and the river and ocean steam
ers connected Herewith had been oper
ated at total loss of about $87, 993. 10
or So, 1884. 55 month; that the receive
had, prior to said date, isued certifi
: Gates amounting to $63S, O41.29, ant
that total liabilities June 80, 1892
= were 1905, 414.40, less $37, 1886. SO
q which was available in part paymen
i of that amount, thus showing total
S Indebtedness at that date of 1857, 87. 5
Q beyond the bonded indebtedness of 81,
Q 900, 900 and interest, which were sc
!. cured by mortgage. How much thi
a debt was increased from June 80, 1892
Q at which time the referee made sup
t Elemental report, to December 90
j 1894, when the sale occurred, tn
: record does not show, but it was ad
It mitted in argument that an indebted
It ness of more than 81, 900, 900 had bee
g incurred by the receiver since his ar
: pointment, October %, 1890.
: Viewed in the light of bushes
: venture, and not considering the amour
a necessary to be expended for better
g ment, property which was operate
a at total loss of more than $4,000 pc
It month does not, it must be conceded
r present very inviting field for capita.
: and while the amount bid for the prop
u erty may be grossly inadequate, W
It cannot say that it is so, in the asbenc
J, of any evidence as to its value; an
IS considering that no sum in excess {
d that amount has been offered by any
n one, it is indeed unfortunate that tn
o expenses of the management of tn
It property cannot be realized from il
t sale. No one can examine the record
Q before us without being impressed wit
d the conviction that the trial court hs
: labored long and earnestly to accom-
e plish this result, but without success
: and to continue the operation of tn
d road under the management of a II
: ceiver would result in further expense
:. which must be borne by those who ca
e ill afford to add it to their present losses
t 1.-THE court, hoping the bondholde
e would by reorganization buy the proI
It erty and pay off the expense of the rt