Arizona republican., 1897-12-17


 pany, and the appointment of re- ceiver under the foreclosure proceed iGgs was so much greater in its scoe e and so completely included all that was asked in the, petition of the Glen dale Fruit company ct al, that the re- ceiver should be appointed in ac cordance with their prayer instead of in accordance with the prayer rf the Glendale Fruit company ct al.
 ''The court is of opinion that, a. though the scope of the petition ;n No 29S4 is so great that it may include all that is asked in petition No. 2982, yet the interests of the petitioners in No. 2982 is so closely connected with the property by reason of the water rights held by the complainanits, and that their large possessions were so dependent upon the management Of the Arizona canal that, if the Mer- chants Loan and Trust company, trustee, had not filed petition fer the appointment of a receiver, the cout would be justified in appointing a re- ceiver under the petition of the Glsn- dale Fruit company ct al, and that, if the Glendale Fruit company ct al had filed their petition subsequent to the petition of the Merchants Loan and Trust company, trustee, they could have been heard in this court as in tervenors, but it having bean filed prior to the petition of the Merchants Loan and Trust company, trustee, it is in accordance with equity practice to consolidate that petition with the petition of the Merchants Loan and Trust company, trustee.
 "It is further adjudged by the court that a receiver be appointed both for the Arizona Canal company and for the Arizona Improvement company; and, while the order was not made at the time the cause was submitted i5 was understood that such an order would be made. About the only ques- ton tak5n under advisement by the court was, who should te appointe1 l such receiver.
 ''The respective counsel and the judge Uf the court had chamber con- fereIc Ices, and the question was dis cussed as to whether there would be but one receiver for the two cOmp.- nies or a separate receiver for each. company, or a joint receiver for the two companies, it being the eanest desire of iuhe judge of this court that the panties should agree upon a per son for receiver and that but one per son be receiver for both companies.
 No agreement has been arrived at, !, and the court is now called upon to make such appointment or appoint ments as he may deem wisest, and most likely to subserve the interests of all parties The names of many excellent gentlemen were, proposed for receivers and an earnest effort has been made to consider them in 1ela- dion to the interests to be dealt with, ddscarding entirely any question of personal preference or personal favo,.
 Tt will be the effort Of the count in this instance, as it ever shall te in all mat ters coming before it, to protect to the very greatest degree all capital in- vested in the territory and used in the development of its resources. It IS also the wish and intention of our ! courts to protect to the very tgreafes st | degree settlers in their interests and investments, and in their efforts to build for themselves homes
 'The bond holders of the Ariz ona improvement company and the Ari- zona Canal company have an invest ment in thd territory connected with | the properties of those companies of 1 much over a million dollars, and it IS likewise true that the faImas under the Arizona canal have investnen s which would probably equal that amount, and one class is entitled to as much protection as the other
 'sThe bond holders have presen. ed the name of gentleman of eminen5 ability as receiver both for the Arizona 
 Improvement company. The parties Glendale Fruit company ct al have also submitted the names of many i gentlemen, all of whom are men of ability, any one of whom they say they will be satisfied with as a receiver for the Arizona Canal company. The gentleman presented by the bond holders has been intimately con- ec,ed for many years with the Arizona Canal company and the Arizona Imp. ove- ment company in an official capac ty land as stochholder in those cOm- panies, which fact alone seemed to make it impossible to appoint him receiver, for either company, as it would be contrary to the custom of courts of equity and contrary to the statutes of the territory.
 Paragraph S88, revised statutes, Arizona Civil code, provides: No party, attorney or person interested in | a suit shall be appointed receiver | therein To meet that object on it was urged that the gentleman who e name had been presented was now no. connected with the companies as an | officer and stockhOlder, and that he has no interests which are in conf ct with that principle or statutory pro- vision, but it was net made clear to the court that his connection with the company had been so completely sev- cred as to present condition ether than one of form instead of substance; and the court feels constrained to en- tirely reject the name; yet, the court feels that it made a becoming effort to obtain the full consent of all Of the parties connected with the action to | have him aDDOiQte as 10 nt ra-