The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-09-03
TO APPEAR IN COURT
On Oct. 3 the Northern Pacific Re-
ceiverS Must Be There.
AND DEFEND THEMSELVES
There Are Charges OF Maiadminis-
tratlon Against Them-The De-
cision Of Judges Gilbert
and hanford.

Seattle. WASH. Sept. 2.-By the de-
cision OF Judge Gilbert, concurred in
by Judge Hanford. Receivers oakes.
Payne and Rouse must appear in the
United States court for the northern
district of Washington in this city. oct.
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 S10s, 900, 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
| that s5,0O0,00O receivers certificates are
valid liens as soon as confirmed by the
respective 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 tho 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 es-
tate will be opened.
Judge Gilbert says: 1.-THE actual pos
session OF the property of the 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 ini-
tlal proceeding have their basis in COM
tty. Such comfy rests upon the fact
that another court Is In actual posses
sion Of portion of the property. which
cannot well be segregated and which
the best interests of all concerned re-
quired to be managed as n single system
Here, however 1t is shown that at the
time Of fling this application to re-
move the receivers. there is no part of
the railroad line of the Northern Paci-
fic Railroad company within the juris-
diction of the court that first appointed
them and that there Is in that district
no personal property held in receiver
ship. All the property that remains to
be disposed Of Is In other jurisdictions
1t follows from this state of facts that
the court Is powerless to make an or
der which affects In any way the man.
agement or possession of any property
of the corporation. No foreclosure sale
of said mortgages can be had, no pos
session to a purchaser can be given un-
til 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 apply to such
case as this. The foundation OF this
rule is tho recognition of the right that
exists in another Jurisdiction. 1t is
predicted upon the fact that another
has first taken and retained the posses
sion Of property. Its reason consists In
the fact that the court OF initiatory
proceedings has in its possession and
must necessarily administer a portion
Of property which a wise policy de-
clares must not be disintegrated. That
reason does not exist in this case. Not
only does 1t not exist, but many con-
siderations lead us to believe that q
wiser. more satisfactory management
of railroad may be obtained by a
court which has Jurisdiction over at
least some Of the territory wherein the
same is situated or which the home Of
fee of the company is located"
In his opinion Judge Hanford consid-
cred as parts of one proposition the
question of remitting dues to Judge
Jenkins court as the court Of primary
jurisdiction and Of collateral attack
The application. he said. was a direct
proceeding, and the assertion that for
the court here to take cognizance OF
the matter as a collateral attack was
untenable. Want of jurisdiction. appa.
rent on the face of the record, was the
ground on which the attack was made
and on such grounds the right of the
parties to litigate was not concluded D.
any decree Of the court whose juris
diction was questioned. The railroad
and real estate of the defendant. beine
immovable. could not be brought with
in the jurisdiction Of the Nil.
waukee court. nor could jurisdiction
acquired by taking possession of suct
assets as money. bonds and other secu.
rites, or in the cars migrating over
other lines, and no consent of partie.
could give to a court Jurisdiction thai
it had never possessed.