The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1895-06-14
The w. s. Sale Confirmed.

ndUClal UdSlS ny "IPihs O"o "AA o'~
claims against it.
After the controversy at the sale at
Shelton, when Ralph Hopkins made
bid of 500, 600, which was rejected by
Receiver Isaac Dobson, the matter
was taken up at Montesano before
Judge Irwin, of Mason and Chehalis.
The purchaser, ]. d. Lowman, moved
the court for confirmation on May 81,
presenting stipulation to that effect
from all the parties of record. Mr..
Hopkins protested as bidder against
the confirmation. His objections set
up fraud in the sale on account of col
fusion between Dobson, the receiver,
and J. ID. Lowman, r. r. Spencer,
Lester Turner and their attorney, f.
A. Bausman. His claim was that his
bid, being the highest, should have
been accepted, while the purchaser
claimed that he was bidder in bad
faith and had refused, after repeated
requests on the receivers part at the
sale, to give any tender OF payment or
assurances of his ability to carry out
the bid, whereas Lowman had made
his bid good at once. AS the affidavits
of Mr.. Hopkins made some very
strong charges, the court decided to
give him a hearing, but required that
if he still insisted that the property
should have been knocked down to
him for $4,000, he should make
deposit before the hearing and within
three days of $4,000, so that if the
court decided to accept his bid, that
sum should remain in the possession
of the court pending the hearing as
pledge of good faith. On failure to
give this pledge he was not to be
heard. By the terms Of the order the
deposit could be made either in cash
or in the railroads bonds, of which
Hopkins claimed to be the owner of
five. This deposit was not made by
Hopkins, but on his failure to make it
the court still gave him a hearing and
took the entire charge of fraud and OF
the bid under consideration.
After full hearing and arr ument
the court, without leaving the bench,
decided that the sale to Lowman was
perfectly fair and regular; that the
charges of fraud were not sustained !;
that Hopkins was not bidder in good
faith, and that the right of Lowman
to confirmation Of sale was sus tain
ed by a large preponderance of testi-
mony.
| The evidence of the case disclosed
that in the latter part of March a re-
organization agreement had been
signed and printed in which the Hop
kinses were recognized. They were
at first allotted four bonds and subse-
quently five, of the class allotted to
the National Bank of Commerce.
These bonds in the old company were
first mortgage, subject to the receiv-
er's certificates. The various banks
signing the reorganization agreement
were creditors of the company, secur-
ed by bonds and certificates to the ex-
tent of about $4,000, and they had
agreed to bid up to this amount at the
sale and allott themselves, as well as
the Hopkinses and others, bonds in a
new company to be organized after
the sale. The charge made against
the Hopkinses in the present litiga-
ton, which the decision of the court
would seem to sustain, is that in
| spite OF many interviews with Mr..
Bausman and the reorganization COM
mittee before the sale, they gave no
notice of their discomfort with their
share OF the new security, but, know
ing from the agreement, of which
they have been given copy, that the
committee was ready to bid up to
$l5O,OOO. they decided suddenly to an
pear as bidders and to force the COM
mlttee by straw bids to run the price
up high enough to oblige it as a pur.
chaser, through Lowman, to pay the
Hopkinses' bonds in cash. In this
way the Hopkinses would get cash
while the other bondholders would
have to take new bonds and wait until
the road could pay them off. The re-
organization committee, however.
stopped the bidding, and gave Hon
kins chance to make his bid good.
| The effect OF the present decision is
the Hopkinses, not having accepted
the new bonds under the reoreani a.
tt IN plan. aud not having heen an
parently able or willing to- make their
bid good and acquire the property.
have probshly lost their entire claim
aga nst the road. The Reorganization
agreement was put in evidence, and