Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1895-09-06

Northern Pacific Receivers Must
Appear in Seattle Court.
AND GIVE AFULL ACCOUNTING
Receivers Certificates Declared Valid
Liens as Soon as Confirmed
by the Courts.


| cision 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 October 2
| and defend themselves against the
charges of NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. made by
| Brayton Ives. president of the North
ern Pacific. The opinion of Judge Gill
bert was read in court this morning.
and the opinion of Judge Hanford was
filed late in the afternoon. The receiv-
ers are each ordered to file in this court
a bond for $10s,0 and also report of
their actions from the time of the last
report confirmed by Judge jenkins up
to the present. 1t is held that the acts
of the receivers are not invalid and the
( $4,000. 900 receivers certificates are valid
liens as soon as confirmed by the re-
spectiye courts. BY the decision the
question of jurisdiction is settled and
the court here becomes the court of
primary jurisdiction. settling the cues
ton of collateral attack The second
part of the Ives application will come
up at the hearing of the order to show
cause and the question of fact as to
whether the receivers have been lax in
their administration of the trust estate
will be opened
GILBERT'S REASONING.
Judge Gilbert says: 1.-THE actual pos
session of the property of an 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
In fe.1 lott ts,e To-.
itial proceeding have their basis in
comfy. Such comfy rests upon the
fact that another court is in the actual
possession of a portion of the property,
which can not well be segregated and
which the best interests of all concerned
require to be managed as single sys-
tenn. Here, however, Ii is shown that
at the time of filing this application to
remove the receivers there is no part
of the railroad line of the Northern Pa
cifie Railway Company within the jur-
isdiction of the court that first appoint
ed them, and that there is in that dis
trict no personal property held in receiv-
ership. All the property that remains to
be disposed of is in other jurisdic-
tions.
1T follows from this state of facts
thdt Tic CouIt 10 pOWtTleSS 10 make an
order which affects in any way the
management or possession of any prop
erty of the corporation. No foreclosure
sales of said mortgages can be had, no
possession to a purchaser can be given
until the courts which have the actual
possession of said railroad shall con-
sent thereto. In our judgment the rule
of comfy which has been invoked in
IN ha ftt5s
apply to such case as this. The foun-
dalton of the rule Is the recognition of
the right that exists in another juris-
diction. 1t Is predicated upon the fact
that another has first taken and re-
tanned the possession of property. Its
reason consists in the fact that the
court of initiatory proceedings has in
its possession and must necessarily ad-
which wise policy declares must not
be disintegrated. That reason does not
exist in this case. Not only does it not
exist. but many considerations lead us
to believe that a wiser, more satisfac-
tory management of railroad may be
obtained by court which has juris-
diction over at least some of the ter
ritory wherein the same is situated or
where the home of the company is To-
cated.'
HANFORD'S RULING.
In his opinion Judge Hanford consid-
cred as parts of one proposition the
question of renting 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 un.
tenable. Want of jurisdiction apparent
on the face of record was the ground
upon which the attack was made, and
on such grounds the right of parties to
lftigate was not concluded by any de-
cree of the court whose jurisdiction
was questioned. The railroad and real
estate of the defendant being immov-
able could not be brought within the
jurisdiction of the Milwaukee court
nor could jurisdiction be acquired by
taking possession of such assets as
money, bonds and other securities, or
in the cars migrating over other lines
and no consent of the parties could give
to a court jurisdiction that 1t had new
er possessed.