The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-08-25
THE BIG CASE CLOSED
Motion to Gust n. z. Receivers
Now With the Judges.
MR.. PETrT's GREAT ARGUMENT.
He Dweils Upon Law Points, and Then
Scores ths Management Matter
Under Amusement.

The application OF Brayton Ives, presi-
dent OF the Northern Pacific. 10 secure
the removal OF Thomas r Cakes, Henry
q Rouse and Henry c. Payne. receivers.
has passed into the hands Of Judge Gil
bert and Judge Hansord. and An early
decision Is anticipated The argument
was closed at II - yesterday morning oy
Siias ". Petit. who had spoken TOT more
than two hours, during which ne turned
awav onlv a few times from a eonsiosra-
ton Of the legal points involved 20 attack
the MANAGEMENT cf the road. AZ soch
periods he was brief and snclSlNe- he was
interrupted frequently b. the attorneys
for the receivers, ouS e1tricatea AsHhseii
easily from the queries pTopoundea. elmer
BIZ pointed logic or by witty retorf-
AT the close OF the argument the court
Announced that in some unexplained man
ner The records in the case had disappear
ed from the files Of the court ana ahA'
there was In their place receipt from
Ashton Il Chairman. Of Tacoma Air. BUM,
Tor the receivers, and Sir. Petit, Tor the
company, agreed 10 supply the papers
from copies OF the record in their posses
sion.
After court had convened Mr. Petit adj
vanced to his position before the JUDGES
and said:
The -. r. Property In Wisconsin.
..When court arose yesterday was al
iuding to certain personal property SAID
to be ia the eastern district OF Wisconsin.
In their pleadiags- counsel for the other
side carefully avoid any allegation as 70
property OF the Northern Pacific, bus
they refer in their answeE 70 certain cars,
which em prepared TO say belonged TO
the Northwest Equipment Company and
were not IN any sense the property oi the
Northern Pacific. Among the phantaa-
magoria which counsel have raised 10 III
vert shs attention Of the court from the
48FEe
the lease OF the Wisconsin Central re-
ferfing 10 81 as ultra wires. You VIII look
IN win among Our papers for any refer
cree 10 lnRt lease, fof i has 10 connect
ton with this case.
Argument here having bcen directed 10
the receiver. and the manner OF their APP
r,oinguaent, Judge Gilbert asked Nr Pet
lit how long the receivers had operated
the road after the first appointment Mr.
Petit explained. ana then Judge nloeft
asked.
DO YOU concede that n the receivers
had continued 20 operate that leased line.
the Wisconsin court would now have 1ur-
isdicticn OF the property"
Mr. Petit answered in the negative,
and continued his argument, saying the
receivers and trust company had endeaN-
ored to eyade any allegation 10 the
property This remark and others in Ike
tenor called forth from Mr. Spooner a
statement that the property had ali been
accounted Tor to tire court. Mr. Fettit
had emphasized the fact that court hav-
ing no part whatever of the Northern Pa
einc within its jurisdiction had assumed
control of the entire system OF road, and
with that thought in mind he answered
Mr.. Spooncr thus:
We'll / don't know that the court could
take money away from people 10 whom IL
belonged. You have asserted for that
court jurisdiction as wide as the bloom
Ing prairles"
A discussion OF the acts of congress
comforting on the United States court jur-
isdleticn 10 foreelose on real property
brought out from Mr.. Petit an answer to
the contention that part OF the land
grant OF the road lying in the western
district OF Wisconsin alone enabled the
court for that district TO entertain the
original suit. why" asked Mr.. Petit,
'did they then go 10 the western district
n the foreclosure proceedings in the east
ern district already applied 10 the prop
erty? Never did they think OF invoking
the statute until they were driven 20 their
wits end TO find some excuse for the pro-
ceeding."
Failing in that said the attorney. they
took up the discussion OF the equitable
character OF the proceeding: and this led
him to review at some length the origin
and growth of equity. Primarily a pro-
cecding in personam. II became. he said.
n proceeding In rem the instant the at
tempt was made to enforce n decree
against a specific piece Of real property.
nor could decree of court operate on
property In a foreign jurisdiction. MIR.
Petit anaizyed the case Of Muller ~.
Dcws. - L. s. As. which had been cited
and relied on by counsel for the receivers.
lie said.
\ Case Not Parallel.
''ft has been repeatedly pointed ont IN
reference 30 tnat case and 70 others Of
Ike character. that the circuit court Of
the United states in Iowa. makine the de-
cree did have within its jurisdiction a
substantial part ~ the property. I'm point
OF fRgt much the larger part OF it. and
that Tie courts Of Missouri had acauiescod
tr the proceedings and that 40 ancIllary or
other proceedings HAD haer had In those
courts. The court was. as matter of fact.
IN possession ~ the railroad. through It's
receivers appointed bv ard accountable 10
Il aloue. and erabled by vlrfUC OF It's own
deere alone 20 deliver possession 20 the
purchaser. ana the validity ~ tho title
winch the purchaser would obtain was
resled upon the dee3 10 - made "a him
b. tas owner and NOT upon The decree Of
the co1rs.. Tna. this rs The truo construc-
tion of the ease. and that 70 is nos true
that clrcuit courts og the United States
have as a general rule. power 20 toggclose
and sell under mortgage land situate In
another district 81 clearly established rs
the Authorities. Ehe acts OF congress con
Ter jurisdiction In suits e. enforce any le-
Ea} or equitable claim against any real %
perseaai property upon tae courts OF Jhe
dsstr3et On which, such property Is situate !.
ana IL render that Jurisdiction sfte.tuat
have siHeH TO toe court baVh1g Jurisdiction
over she subject matter power 80 serve BY
publication ana bring Inc tho owner Of tho
property, ana other necessary parties 10
she s}sit. whatever th-lr citizenship or ras-
itcnee Tray De. ana wherever they may
h. toUnd: art therefore Us What Is rat
given must be taken 80 bc denied. &c would
seem 10 follow THAI court not having
jurisdiction of the subject matter has 30
jurisdiction go enforce lien or claim
against IT,
The Charge Of Collision.
"tfeVe 10 decree Of that kind can ha exer-
Cisot The jurisdiction % the person IN
tbs ease Was acquired absolutely bv col
huston An agreement was made hv the
individuals engineering this scheme forthe
appointment ot receivers weeks before the
appointment was made. They had plenty
or iine 80 get the papers ready - select
THE forum, and when the time came the
president Of the company ordered the conn
SCI ~ the company 70 20 here ana there
afd al along the lire, III one place appear
Ing for complainant in this action. AZ an
other for the defendant. ard ar sian ancth-
a. Tor both parties. ana they selected as
the tribunal % original Jurisdiction he
only court III the United States which had
-----------------------------
=, fEI' i SEATTLE
Ayzvrzvvyvzv1S KlaE FIarg