Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-06-06

putu they uil agree upon lhat pEupUti-
ton.
Judge Merritt msdc several iu.
quities - to the Intention 70 leave Out
tne Utah S0uthetn Extension, ami
was Informed Fugh wa not the inteu.
ton, but there WAS no difec. assurance
that " the order was granted that sec.
ton would be taken by the Loan com.
pauy.
SIR. Storey pointed out that a. 10 the
Utah Southern ENte sion, the LOnu
company held the fret mortgage. He
Insisted that when the Union Pacific
request for n rerclver5hlp In the Utah
court WINS granted, the condition was
identlcil with that IN which tile Loan
company now found itsoli
Judge BAnbOfu, representing bond
I holders under the hs.t mortgage, took
the door to argue against the separate
! tCcuivnrsbiU. Ho said tho Loan com.
| psuy represented only ~ per cent Of
the Short Line, 81, $50, 900, AMI sij7,OOO
ON the Utnh southern ana .llS,UOJ
| ON the Utah 3 uthefn Extension;
while the larger Interest was On behalf
Di those who ask for the re-
tentiOn ~ the live receivers now
| In charge OF the Union Pacific.
The proposition wfs 10 change the
pefs5nuol Of tbs agouts OF the court,
which the receivers were, This
| property 10 In possession VI the court,
anu the only question T. change Of
SCENTS. the i've receivers were
| familiar Win the line, aud Mr. Egau,
/ or any other now receiver, would nave
| tDsprnd some time 10 become famllia
almost until the time when the fore.
closure 81 the mortgage could be made.
The bundh IlGBfs represented by
Judge SanhOtn, no said, Enormously
| objected & any charge which would
| burden thOm with further expense.
| The Utah c0uT! WIS not bound 10
| follow the order OF the other courts az
70 the property within It, Jurisdiction.
| II a separate receiver shoulI DO detof-
mlnci upon by tho court, tho bond
holders referred 10 objected t1 thu
! conditions Of issue Oi tuu receivers
certificates ~ asktd by the Loan
company; and these b0nIholIors
held about sslD.OO1 bands under
this came consolidated mortgage
which the L9a company IL preceding
under. Judge sAnborn insisted that
thofe never had been case whore,
under objection such a. made here, u
court had ordered receivers oeftih.
Gates TOT the purpose asked for here.
| The test Of the right 10 issue certificates
was the necessity therefor, but the
object hore was NOT necessity 10 pre-
serve tho property or keep the road In
operation, IL the Loan company would
pay the nrst mortgage deiAultlng iu-
tetsst, then II would have light 10
ask q sepArate receiver, but thoy d.
not. They ask the court to borrow the
money. They propose to make the
certificates lieu prior TO the c0nsoli.
dated mortgage; these b0ndholiers
under that mortgage, holding II yer
| cent, object TO the court changing thiA
order u precedence VI liens. IL would
DO lees Objectionable N tue certificates
were 10 bear . per cent andto be- sOld nj
pat; but II was asked that they bohr
| pct cent, payable In two yeats, In gold,
aud that they be sold NJ % per cent.
| THIS, tue b0ndhOldefa insislel would
be- Hn injury to the properly.
Judge Sanb0rn further Insisted that,
as trustee under the consolidated
mortgage, the Loan company had no
| right ~ usk for such certificates. There
was no such stipulation Ia the contract.
| The kOndhOldsra Insisted that there
should be no disruption Of the Short
Line road, even II n separate receiver
be appointed. For that reason they
asked that, II the order asked be made,
the court insert provisions Ihst N there
IL deisuit In any part Of tho interest,
the whole road shall come back to the
| present receivers, The purpose OF this
was 20 prevent the disruption Of the
| Short Line.
Mt. Hall followed on behalf Of the
Oregon Short Line company. lie
agreed with tho other side that tho re-.
ceiver should not represent adverse
interests. Yet the Loan company
asEed that there be such an appoint
meut MAZE. This application was not
to allow the second mortgage bond.
holders 10 pay the dofAulting interest
and have receiver appointed, but
ghAt the court appoint n receiver, and
borrow the money TO pay the default
lug interest. Tho hrrt application was
TO pay up, but that was changed " the
present form,
The Loan company, Mr.. Hail ssid.
held u position adverse to the Short
Line Interests by which II proposed 10
add half million dollars indebted.
ness 10 the Utah a Northern, which
the Oregon court had placed on the
Oregon Navigation company. lie In
sisted that under the doctrine OF conf.
ty, merely TO sgtee with other Judges,
rights should not be intetisTod with as
IA proposed here.
There was coll0quy between Messrs.
Hall ana Storey. In which oAoh In.
sisted on different statement As 10
what occurred IN other courts. The
counsel, Mr. Hall especially, grew a
little warm anu sarcastic.
Mr. Hall continued HE argument that
such certificates Us nBkei had never
been Issued b heretofore. He then directed
attention TO the claim for An option a.
lake control or not Of any section Of
the road. Ga behalf OF tne Short line
company, MT. Hall insisted that there
was no right 10 have such an order
The corporation had been created by
tue union OF All the lines, anu cOu Nd
not be subject 10 separation, Ii the
road Is taken II must be taken ~ @
whole.
Mr.. Storey asked II, In the consOlida.
ton, the new company assumed all ths
liabilities Of the lines Included, which
formerly were separate.
Senator rhurston replied to this In
the affirmative, because the laws O
Utah 10 provided. Tue consolidated
company wss obligated to pay out oil
It's earnings tho Indebtedness on any
part. The Loan company could moi
take revenues from one part, and IT,.
fuse TO pay tho obligations on any
other part.