The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-11-24
MUST PAY THE RENT.
Decision Against o. r. & n. in
Spokane Depot Case.
RECEIVERS MAY NOT APPEAL.
Judge Hanford settles an Account Be-
tween Two Officers OF Federal
Courts~No Reduction.

Rv an order made In Judge Hanford 5
court last evening. Z. Mcneil. receiver Of
the Oregon Railway 4 Navigation Com
rany. Will be obliged 70 pay 20 a n JUS
receiver Of the Spokane Union Depot LoHl-
many. rent To- ermlna GROUNDS m Spo-
kane for Z. period OF eleven months. me
amount Of money due has not been exact
- determined, bat is about FiI,2s. and the
order Of court provides that payment shaAI
h. made On or before December 81 The
court also denied the right Of the receiver
TO aopeal from al order OF the court ap-
poinffng him. and declined TO rule on the
question a. 70 whether the order vas ap-
peaiable. stating that II the FARMERS
Loan and Trust Company. trustee Tor tne
q. Il. & X, desired to appeal. the rlshl 10
do 90 could b decided bg the circuit court
81 appeals.
The action is entitled the Farmers Loan
and Trust Company ~. the Oregon hali-
vvav A. %ayigatIon Company. ana GUS as
receiver interviewed, asking the court 70
order McNei as receiver 70 pay the rent
~ fbe depot property for six months prior
10 tho time 0f his appointment auslns
which time the property was IN the naH1s
NJ the Union Pacific receivers, and also 10
nav rent from July. i4A, the date O ne
aupoinfment az separate receiver Up 10
tho time when he began paying rent 70
Otis under order Of court. Dhs sppi1d
ton vLs contested By the trust company
and by Mcneil. and each OF them filed ar
enev,or. AfcEel also requesting that the
court modify tho order BY reducing the
amount OF rent
Judge Hanford first denied a motion ny
Otis to strike from both y saying
that ne found them IN part responsive.
Passing 10 the main question ne sac IA.
that had been shown %as thai thefe were
difference properly matters or account
tnv between Mcneil and the receivers Q.
he Union Pacific, but that a creditor hat
q right to l10k 10 property IN the hands 81
the court for reimbursement ana SHeutu
not b. kept waiting while inherent &6ti-
eies Of the court were setting accouits
1atvesan themselves. ut may transplFe-
he said. chat the linton Pacific receiver
shin IS indebted 10 Receiver Mcneil ~
reason Of It's operation 81 the depot prop
ertv. and u may turn out the otner way
hut creditors should not be- delayed WINE
an adjustment of accounts is going on
The courts conclusion. In brtet. was t""t
Mcneil pay Otis at the contract rate from
n date six months prior 10 ms app"lh'-
men. until December 81, ISL 4 pvit"N -
about eleven months
In respect 20 Mcneil request Tor q re-
s,cfi,n Of the rate the court said he was
rot inclined. as were some railway man
ayers. To tax property all u con.u s1duu
and l-an toward taxing Il "a htLe NOR.
Since the contract had been entered INTO
business had materially Increased "lthodI
any lnctease OF rental, and he fhonsht the
,rsssn; rent was reasonable. on request
Of counsel u TX the amount due, me court
asked Receiver Otis. who was present II
he could give the figures FOR the amount
Of interest on the outstanding bonds Issued
during tho period Of eleven months, the
amount paid hy the Great Northern "a
fat rental. and the amount OF the floating
usb. NJ. Otis said the figures could be
oh.alued from his books in Spokane, q
the court added that he could determine
the question without reference 10 a mas
ter.
''Inasmuch as the trust company and the
receiver seem TO have attempted 10 eVade
the orders OF court previously made. !
would ask that the court fix a time when
this money shall he paid" said EZera SNOW.
representing the American Loan and Trust
Company in the case against the depot
eompany. The request was supported by
Mfr Herman. counsel for Receiver Otis,
and tho court ordered that the money he
paid on or before December 81. Mr.. Wood,
for .he trust company, and Receiver Nc
Nell. int.mated that the receiver would
take an appeal. saying that while Judge
pelllneer had spoken severely against such
a course. and had said that, II his receiver
would not obey orders. he would appoint
another VINO would. he himself was In
clined 20 differ with the court. Judge
Uanford said he would not pass upon the
right Of the trust company TO appeal. but
would not permit the receiver TO appeal
The order OF court vii, be entered as n
date Yesterday The court stated that II
case OF appeal by the trust company. the
bond II taken With supersedcas would be
SO. 90. without supcFsedeas. Sl.N0.