The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-09-03


Is within thu territory within when tas
court has power 70 art.
ssIt was sad By the court n Young -
ere Montgomery Railroad Company.
Woods gIs that ~ there are airy adtuGss1
cases which would authorize this court 70
interfere with the possession Of a receiver
APPOINTED by another court haviaE 1uris-
fictfon. and who is in actual possession OF
the property they have never fallen ursder
my observation But 10 - made clear from
a consideration OF that case that in declin-
ing 10 interfere with a receiver VINO was
in actual possession % the property tue
court had In mind the fart that IN that case
the court o< initial proceeding had WITHIN
fts jurisdiction and I'm the custody OF ifs
receiver portion ~ the road and Or tns
property of the railroad company. snc u
Is evident that such actual possession was
considered necessary feature % the re-
Ownership OF another court which. IN the
opinion Of that court. could not De inter-
fered with.
Transfers Have Not Changed Sifus.
.-rhe fact that certificates OF stock in
other corporations which were held ~ the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company nave
since the receiverEhip been Transferred 70
the receivers and stand in their names mas
no bearing upon the question under con
alteration. The situs OF such property -
not changed BY the fact of such transfer.
Shares OF stock held by the Northern Pa
eifIc Railroad Company must be presumed
10 have been held by ~ at its home Office
IN the city OF New York. II those shares
have been transferred 70 the receivers.
such transfer has been made az the home
Office and must have been made under fns
authority Of the circuit court for that dis
fricf. and II they are held by the receivers
they are held under the direction and con-
troll or that court. and they are not IN the
possession or under the custody Of the
H.
corsin.
validity of Receivers Certificates.
"It is strongly urged against the as
sumption OF jurisdiction by this court 10
entertain the motion. that during the re-
ownership receivers certificates have been
issued TO large amount. and that the
same are now held by innocent purchasers,
and that to deDy the primary jurisdiction
III the court for the Eastern district OF
Wisconsin over the receivership. Is 10 hold
that those certificates were uniawfuily is-
sued. We find no ground for such c0nten-
ton. II the receivers certificates have
been authorized by the courts OF the va
T!ous districts Ia which the property in re-
Ownership f. situated. they are valid Hens
upon that proper or Irrespective of the
question whether the court for the East
ern district Of Wisconsin had jurisdiction
n order their issuance. II they have not
been 10 authorized. IL Is not perceived how
the action OF this court can la any way af-
feet the question Of their validity. ~
must bs conceded In any view OF the case
that the receivers are az the present time
and have been since their appointment. the
lawful sppointees OF ali the courts In the
Jurisdiction OF which the property OF the
Northern Pacific Railroad Company Is sit
uated. They are the receivers Of the rail-
road, and none OF their acts done within
the scope OF their authority and under the
rt..t, T..xr. fr,t
over said property, are invalid.
seattle Court Has Jurisdiction.
''It ia further contended that II the cir
cult court for the Eastern district of Wis
consln is held not to b. the court OF pri-
mary jurisdiction over the property In re-
Ownership. such primary jurisdiction falls
either 10 the circuit court for the Western
district OF Wisconsin. I'm whose jurisdiction
a portion OF tho company's railroad lies,
and in which receivers were appointed be-
fore they were appointed in this court, or
20 the circuit court for tho Southern dis
trict of New York. IN which Is located the
home Office Of the corporation and n large
portion OF its personal property. II Is suf-
ncient to say In answer TO this, that u is
not shown that either OF said courts have
assumed such jurisdiction or that they Will
do So We see therefore no ground upon
which this court should decline 20 hear
the motion which Is presented.
''The objection to tho jurisdiction Will be
overruled."
Judge Hartford Concurs.
when he had finished reading Judge
Gilberts opinion. Judge Hanford said:
"For myself / concur fully I'm the con-
clusions and In the reasons given in the
opinion which ] have read. written by
Judge Gilbert. But In view OF the extra
ordinary Importance of this case IL was
the desire of the circuit judge that 1
should perform some OF the labor OF elab-
Grating the views which We entertained,
and my individual opinion is now being
copied and will be placed on file as soon
as the mechanical part or IL is completed.
We think that 1t is necessary that tho re-
ceivers. before any further action -
taken. should be called upon 10 make fun
answer 10 the affidavit OF Mr.. Braytop
Ives. and day Will be set for the further
hearing OF this matter, and the receivers
will be given an opportunity to respond
60 the affidavit OF MIR. Ives by furths
answer. plea or demurrer. as they may
elect. by day 10 be fixed
Mr.. Petit asked that the court ut once
~ the time. and Judge Hanford answered
that he would do so II counsel were not
able TO agree. Mr.. Petit called the atten-
ton OF the court TO the fact that the re-
cetvers had never given security in this
district. lie thought that they should
give security pending the answer, and
hereafter report TO the court ut all events.
Mr.. Allen. for the Trust Company. said
he felt uncertain as TO whether there
would be review Of the decision, Vet
out or caution no asked that an exception
he noted As tho labor of preparing. an
swers and dealing with the facts in tho
case would dcyolve largely upon local
counsel. they were anNillS. Re sail for
the purpose OF preparation AMI OF Obtain
ing the facts necessary and Of having the
requisite conferences VITA Eastern coun-
eel, TO have such time FIR answering as
the court could allow. There was neccs-
sary much exhaustive Information. much
81 which WAS not upon the ground. and
those who are 20 act would have q 30
abroad for considerable part OF the in
formation.
TIE Court Wants No Delay.
In reply 20 tho suggestion az counsel
judge Hanford spoke as follows:
Ny idea about IL is that the court ouEh.
20 proceed summarlly in this matter. az
course a far chance 20 be heard must ~.
accorded, bat This is not a case 10 go
Iroplng ana searching for facts. The
facts ara necessarily Within the KNOWLEDGE
or the individuals that have - make the
answer, aud they cannot leave employed
counsel 80 50 scrapinE for facts They
arc called upon now 20 act. and il surI..ent
time, consistent With their other duties. n
make a full response - this matter e an
the court thinks they ought - have
think counsel ought 20 be able 90 acrcr
about the dates. but unless YOU arc able
20 do 50 after a conference J WILL nN che
date. and what | have SAID indicates wast
my Idea Is. that this matter ought no, a.
drag along"