The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-09-03
RECEIVERS MUST ANSWER.
Cakes, Payne and Rouse Must De-
fend Themselves.

SEATTLE. Wash, Sept BY the
decision of Judge Gilbert, concurred in
by Judge Hanford, receivers Cakes,
Payne and Rouse must appear in the
United States court for the northern
district of Washington in this city Oc-
tober 2, and defend themselves against
the charges of maladministration made
by Brayton Ives, president of the
Northern Pacific. The opinion of
Judge Gilbert was read in court this
morning and the opinion of Judge Han
ford was filed late in the afternoon.
The receivers are each ordered to file
in this court a bond for 100000 and
also a report of their actions from the
time Of the last report confirmed 10y
Judge Jenkins up to the present. 1t
is held that the acts of the receivers
are not invalid and the So 900, 900 re-
ceivers' 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 question of
collateral attack.
The second part of the Ives applica-
ton will come UP at the hearing of
the order to show cause, and the ques-
ton of fact as to whether the receivers
Of the trust estate will be opened.
What Judge Gilbert Says.
Judge Gilbert says: 1.-The actual pos
session Of the property of the insolvent
corporation by the first court, through
It's 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 initial
proceeding have their basis in comfy.
Such county rests upon the fact that
another court is in the actual possess
sion Of portion of the property, which
can not well be segregated and which
the best interests of all concerned re-
qutre to be managed as a single Eys-
tenn. Here, however, 1t is shown that
at the time of filing this application
to remove the receivers, there is no
part of the railroad line of the North
ern Pacific Railroad company within
the jurisdiction Of the court that first
appointed them and that there Is in
that district no personal property held
in receivership. All the property that
remains to be disposed of is in other
Jurisdictions. 1t follows from this
state OF facts that the court is power
less to make an order which affects
In any way the mana cement or pos
session of any property of the CORPORA
ton. No foreclosure sale of said mort
cages can be had, no possession to
purchaser can be given until the courts
Which have the actual possession of
said railroad shall consent thereto. In
our Judgment the rule of comfy which
has been invoked in opposition to the
Judgment does not apply to such a
case as this. The foundation of the
rule is the recognition of the right that
exists in another jurisdiction.
1T is predicted upon the fact that
another has first taken and retained
the possession of property. It's reason
consists in the fact that the court of
initiatory proceedings has in it's pos
session and must necessarily admins
ter portion of property which a wise
policy declares must not be disinte-
grated. That reason does not exist in
this case. Not only does it not exist,
but many considerations lead US to
believe that wiser, more satisfactory
management of a railroad may be OBJ
tanned by q. court which has jurisdic-
ton over at least some of the territory
Wherein the same is situated or which
the home Office Of the company is
located
What Judge Hanford Says.
In his opinion Judge Hanford con-
sidered as parts of one proposition the
question of rennitting 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, ap-
parent on the face of record, was the
ground on which the attack was made.
and on such grounds the right of the
parties to litigate was not concluded
by any decree of the court whose urls
diction was questioned The railroad
and real estate of the defendant, being
immovable, could not be brought
within the jurisdiction of the Mdlwau-
kee court, nor could jurisdiction be &C.
quired by taking possession of such
assets as money, bonds and other Sc
curfties, or in the cars migrating over
other lines, and no consent of parties
could give to court jurisdiction that
1t had never possessed.