New-York tribune., 1895-09-03
THREE RECEIVERS OUSIED
NORTHERN PACIFIC PLACED IN NEW
HANDS.
A FAR REACHING DECISION BY JUDGES HANFoRD
AND GuBERT-UUDGE JENKINS HAD no

pr,ctI1X,i DECISION BY JUDGES HANFoRD
AND GIBERT-JrDGE JENKINS HAD 80
AUTHORITY To NAME RECEIVERS
Seattle Wash Sept. I'm the Federal court
this morning District Judge Hanford read the
decision OF Circuit Judge Gilbert. OF Portland III
tho case Of the Northern Pacific Railroad Com
many against Receivers Oakes, Payne and Rouse
in which IT was held that Judge Jenkins In the
C,rcuit Court of the Eastern District OF Wscon-
Gin was not the courts final jurisdiction and
tbot no had no authority under the Law 10 name
receivers not having Jurisdiction over Northern
Pacific property.
A decision written by Judge Hanford. OF this
district concurring fully in Judge Gilberts
oninjon was placed file at the same time.
The Court holds that the receivers must now
annear in this district and answer the charges
made against them in an affidavit filed recently
bv President Brayton Ives. Of the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company As 10 the Naidlty
Of the s5000.CO0 certificates issued by the re-
ceivers with the consent of Judge Jenkins, the
Court holds that they not valid and are
not liens againsf the Northern Pacific properly
unless confirmed by the courts Of jurisdiction.
Judge Hanford ordered the receivers to give
bond in his court. and hereafter the entire
MANAGEMENT of the great Northern Paclhc
property will be done under the direction Of
Judge Hanford. In their decision Judges Gill
bert and Hanford in part say:
eve find in the case no question OF an attack
upon the jurisdiction OF the Circuit Court Tor me
mat court had Jurisdiction the bills that were
filed and had Jurisdiction to appoint the receivers
railroad company that was within It's territory
and to remove the same The question for CONSIDER.
alton here is not one o. the jurisdiction oi that
court i'm the suits pending before H.. nut II l.
whether or not that court is to-day me cour, o,t
urinary Jurisdiction. MANAGEMENT ana cohtroi OF
The property OF the Northern Pacific Railroad COM,
pany in the hands Of receivers and whesnrr % 'o re
requires this court to decline Jurisdiction unui me
by another tribunal All bills that were nied IN % we
various Jurisdictions in which the property OF the
Northern Pacific Company Is situated were oriRlhh gina
bills 1t is true that each bill filed after the lh1t,
alton OF proceedings In the Eastern Dlstticu ol
the basis Of action In the other courts aha h & Is
also true that the other courts, IN foio"inS the e
of comfy. appointed in heir own districts Win.
out question the receivers SO named py "'e !"
court , -, 49,, rocor,v NJ an in
solvent corporation by the first court tnrousn -
receivers, however. could extend no ,,n.tic ,u,.uc.
than the territorial limits OF that courts lurlsuic
ton The rights of receivers are accorded W h .he
courts whose Jurisdiction Is exterior TO 'na' t o, na
initial proceeding and have their basis IN comlt!
such comfy rests upon the fact that anothtr coui'
is in actual possession OF portion OF the properly
which cannot well be segregated. and when tne
best interests OF all concerned require to be man
shown that at the lime OF the hling OF this applica-
ton to the receivers there - no par' OF the
railroad OF the Northern Pacific Company wthin
,he Jurisdiction Of the court that FIRST appointed
them and that there is In that district no personal
property held IN receivership. All the properly
mat remains he disposed OF is IN other jursdic
tons Ii follows from this state or facts thaI inc
Court Is poweress 10 make an order which affects
i'm any way the management the possession OF
any property Of the corpora ion.
Judge Hanford set October as the date when
Receivers Oakes Payne and Rouse may hle their
answer To the affidavit OF Brayton Ives.
United States Senator John Spooner, counsel
for the receivers. made a vigorous ngnt TOT
longer time in which TO make answer to whlch
Colonel Silas w Petit. general counsel oi tne
Northern Pacific Company, retorted that !! the
receivers were attending to tnelr business IN
stead Of junketing about the country so h'uc"
time would not be needed.
Leading lawyers Of the state were In attend
ance upon the court when the decision was reau
The Farmers Loan and Trust Company. OF
New-York was represented by Struve. Hughes
Allen & McMicken. the firm working In coniunc-
tion with the counsel for the receivers Colonel
PETIT was assisted by Samuel II. Piles and Har-
old Preston in the great legal battle.