The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-09-03


ceiver- and Trust Company Muss
Answer by October :.
The first portion % the application of
Rraytou Ives. president Of The Northern
Pacific Railroad company. TO have ouStei
tho receivers Of the road has been sue
cessful, and an order has been issued
from Judge Hanfords court citing
ThSmaS T. oaNcs. Henry Z. Payne and
Henry c. Rouse. receivers. 10 appear and
show cause why they should not he re-
moved for abuse of their trust. Answers
must he nlcd both by the receivers and
the Farmers Loan & Trust Company.
trustee. by October .. and within that
time the receivers must each give TO this
court a bond for Sl0aNQ and must file p
report OF their acts within dates specified
below. An opinion by Judge Gilbert de-
Gliding the questions indicated above was
handed down yesterday morning. Judge
Hanford concurring. and late in the af-
ternoon an opinion by Judge Hanford.
celebrating the points involved In tho
contention. was filed with the clerk of ths
court. Judge Gilbert's opinion was read
at 10 o'clock. and was listened 10 atten-
lively by counsel and others interested
in the case az the Farmers Loan * Trust
Company, complainant. vs. the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company ct al, de-
PENDANTS.
Judge GiIbert'= Opinion.
After recitiug the history of the htiga-
tion. beginning with the Winston bill.
filed August Il. 1898. i'm equity in thu
United states circuit court for the East
ern district of Wisconsin. and the fore
closure bill Of ,he Farmers Loan q Trust
Company. filed in the same court October
Is following, the opinion gives a clear and
concise statement OF all the steps taken
subsequently. Finally comes "A summary
OF the Ives affidavit accompanying The ap-
piication for the vacation OF the order
appointing the receivers I'm this court.
other proceedings covering recent steps
in the case are then referred 10. and tho
opinion continues:
Has Jenkins Primary Jurisdiction
we find in the case no question of an
attack upon the jurisdiction OF the circuit
court Tor the Eastern district of Wiscan-
sin. 1t must be conceded that that court
had jurisdiction or the oils that were
filed. and had jurisdiction to ap-
point receivers to take into its
possession the property OF the rail-
road company that was within It's
territory. and 70 remove the same. The
question for consideration here Is not ono
of the jurisdiction OF that court In tho
suits pending before IL. but Ii Is whether
or not that court is today the court or
primary jurisdiction for the management
and control of the property of the North
eTn Pacific Railroad Company in tho
hands of receivers, and whether the rule
of comfy. as settled by the decisions of
the courts. requires this court TO decline
jurisdiction OF the motion until the mat
ters here ia issue shall have been hdJudi-
Gated by another tribunal.
"AU of the bills that were fled In the
various jurisdictions in which the prop
erty Of the Northern Pacific Railroad
q sr afF4 faI ssrayR n-frrf
II is true that each bin filed after the
Initiation OF proceedings In the Eastern
district Of Wisconsin recited and referred
10 those proceedings as the basis Of ac-
ton IN other courts. and IL Is also true
that tho other courts. in following the
rule OF comfy. appointed in their own dis
tricts without question the receivers so
named bY the first court. The actual pos
session of the property or the insoiyent
corporation ny the first court. through its
receivers. however. could extend no fur
ther than tho territorial limits OF that
courts Jurisdiction. The rights the re-
ceivers arc accorded In courts whose turis-
diction Is exterior TO that OF initial pro-
ceedug have their basis IN comfy. such
comfy rests upon the fact that another
court is IN the actual possession or por-
ton Of property. which cannot well hs
segregated. and which the best interests
OF all concerned require TO be managed
as a single system.
Here, however. II Is shown that at the
time OF filinE this application 90 remove
tho receivers there Is 40 part OF the raii-
road line Of the Northern Pacific Rail-
road Company within tho jurisdiction Of
the court that first appointed them, and
that there IS In that district no personal
property held IN recelvcrship Al tho
property that remains 10 be disposed OF is
In other jurisdictions.
Tho wisconsin Court Poweriess.
49, 1.
that court Is powerlcss 10 make an order
which affects in any way the manage
mcut or possession Of any OF the prop
crtv Of the corporation. No foreclosure
sale ~ said mortgages can he had. no
possession TO purchaser can he gwen.
untl the courts which have the actual
possession Of eaid railroad shall consent
thereto.
I'm our judgment the rule or comity
,z-hirh has hecn invoked IN opposition to
the motion does not apply In such q case
as this The foundation of the rule fs the
recognition of right that exists
ln another Jurisdiction. ~ IS preoicafcf
upon the fact thar another court has
fret taken aud retained possession of
property It's reason consists IN the Tact
that tho court Of inltiafoTy proceedings mas
a., fts uopaeesion and must necessarily af-
minister a portion Of property which "A
wise polIry declares must not be disln-
,sprsted That reason does not exist In
-hfs case. Not only does II not exist. but
MANY considerations urge us 10 believe
tnat a wiser more satisfsetory manage
rrerf M railroad may he obtained hy
conrt which has jurisdiction over at least
soma Of tho territory wherein the same
r. situated. or IN which the home office of
the company Is located.
The Case u tnique.
Numerous authorities are cited hy coun-
sat hofn IN behalf ~ the motion and in op-
rositioo thereto. hut m case is found
which - direct authority either for or
against the conclusion which we have
reached In a weli-consldersd case IN the
suprerns court OF Texas Teas * Pacific
PATHWAY Company vs.. Guy - al. Il was
held that the United States circuit court for
a district IN louisiana has no jurisdiction n
apnoint a receiver, and through him 70
take possession and control railroad. no
part ~ which was within that state. Said
the court.
" No case can arise in which a court
will have power 10 appoint receiver un-
less there be property OF which the court
may take possession through its receiver: I:
and IL the property be immovabie Tor NOV
able. bat - connected with the innmoFabi9
as ar. cars or other like property necea-
.srv 10 and used In operating railway.
then the suit in which a receiver 70 take
f,oesee~l0u OF them may be appointed -