St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1896-01-29
MILWAUKEE, JUDGE HAS FULL
JURISDICTION OVER NORTH
ERN PACIFIC RECEIVERS.
so SAYS THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION RENDERED YESTERDAY
BY JUDGES FIELD, HARLAN,
BREWER AND BROWN.
Circuit Court for Eastern Wiscon-
sin Can Proceed to Decree of
Foreclosure.

WASHINGTON, JAN. %. Judges
Field, Harlan, Brewer and Brown, Of
the supreme court, today rendered their
decision in the Northern Pacific re-
ceiVership case, holding all the courts
along the line Of the road to be ancillary
to Judge Jenkins court at Milwaukee
This decision gives the Milwaukee court
the jurisdiction over the entire system
in the matter of receiverships.
The case was argued before all these
members of the supreme court sitting in
chambers and as individual justices
presiding over the various judicial cir
cults which the road traversed, except
In the case of Justice Brown of the Sec
ond circuit, who sat in the case before
the fact that the Northern Pacific has
large property interests in New York,
which is in his circuit 1t was shown at
this hearing that the first creditors bill
and the foreclosure proceedings Of 1893,
had been filed in the circuit court for
the Eastern district of Wisconsin,
sitting at Milwaukee, and over
which Judge Jenkins presides. 1t was
also shown that this court then ap-
pointed receivers for the entire system,
who were for time recognized. After
wards, however, the circuit court for
other districts appointed receivers for
the portion of the road embraced with
In their respective Jurisdictions and
such confusion and antagonism arose
that 1T was feared the interests Of the
read would be seriously jeopardized.
E,ynantlOn q 10 h.; !;
of the Milwaukee court, on the ground
that the Northern Pacific had no road,
except leased line within the limits
OF the Eastern district of Wisconsin.
This was substantially the only objec-
tion made to it's recognition, and it was
1ntlmated at the time Of the hearing
that a large majority Of the interests
involved would be satisfied with the
designation of the Milwaukee court, as
the responsible tribunal and the one by
which the receiver or receivers for the
entire line should be designated.
Justices Field, Harlan and Brewer
prepared and united in a memorandum
Of conclusions as follows:
THE parties in the active causes.
namely the Farmers Loan & Trust
company the Northern Pacific Rail-
way company, the second mortgage
bondholders, represented by John Liv-
ingston, chairman, and the reorganiza-
ton committee of bondholders, repre-
sented by E. A. Adams, have presented
to us petitions setting forth the gen.
eral history of these causes, and ask
ing that such an order be made in the
respective circuits to which we are as
signed as will secure the operation as
an entirety of the property of the rail-
road company, covered by mortgages
in which the Farmers Loan & Trust
company is trustee, and such other or
ders in the premises as to us shall seem
meet. An said application has been
heard by US in chambers in the city of
Washington, under an agreement in
writing between the said parties, that
we should do so.
I'VE are of opinion that proceedings
to foreclose a mortgage placed by a
railroad company upon it's lines extend
ing through more than one district
should, to the end that the mortgaged
property may be effectively admins
tered, be commenced in the circuit
court of the district in which the prin-
cipal operating officers are situated
and in which there Is some material
part of the railroad embraced by the
mortgage; that such court should be the
court of primary jurisdiction and Of
principal decree, and the administra-
ton Of the property in the circuit
courts of other districts should be an
cillary thereto. But in view of what
has transpired in these foreclosure pro-
ceedings principally in view of the fact
that portion of the line of the road
owned by the Northern Pacific railroad
was, and is now, in the state of Wis
consin, and that at the time of the
filing Of the creditors bill Gn which the
trustee in the mortgage was a co-plain-
tiff the Northern Pacific railway was
operating it's road through the East
ern district Of Wisconsin, although that
part of it's line so operated belonged
to another company, and was under
lease to the Northern Pacific Railway
company for ninety-nine years, and in
view Of the further fact that the rail-
road company entered its appearance
and assented to the act of the circuit
court for the Eastern district of Wis
conSin in taking Jurisdiction, and as
such exercise of jurisdiction has been
recognized by the circuit court in ev-
cry district along the line Of the North
ern Pacific railroad, and by all parties
for the space Of about two years, dur
ing which time many orders in the
course of administration have been en-
tered, we are Of opinion
THAT the circuit court for the East
ern district Of Wisconsin has jurisdic-
ton to proceed to decree Of foreclos-
ure, which will bind the mortgagor
company and the mortgaged property,
and ought, therefore. to be recognized
by the circuit courts Of every district
along the line. of the road as the court
Of primary Jurisdiction; and
That proceedings In the latter
courts, while protecting the rights Of
the real creditors, should be ancillary
in their character and subordinate to
the proceedings in the court of primary
jurisdiction. In expressing these views
we are not to be understood as passing
upon the proposition advanced in the
argument but not necessary to be here
considered, that it is competent
for a circuit judge of the United
States by consent of parties, to
foreclose the mortgage of a railroad,
no part of which is within the terrific
rial Jurisdiction Of such court
Justice Brown signed a special mem
orandum Of his views, which is as fol-
lows:
'In view of the doubts suggested re-
garding the jurisdiction Of the circuit
court of the United States for the East
ern district of Wisconsin to forecIose
the mortgage in this case, and Of the
further fact that the business offices Of
this company have been, and still are,
at ST. Paul, 1 think the circuit court
for the district of Minnesota should be
treated as the court Of primary juris-
diction. But as the whole object of the
hearing before the justices assigned to
the four cjrcllitS in which fha prOporfxy