The enterprise. [volume] (Wellington, Ohio) 188?-1899, 1897-11-03

COHlpuuy, DolllS vi bIl6 ndJuTe GIdG L
have just stated, whenthe courts ap-
point receiver. all necessary expendi-
lures by him that may be authorized
by the court will be placed ahead of
bond holders but this rule does not
apply to a private corporation. And
upon this say the courts are uniform.
The receiver, so far as he has done
anything to preserve and care for the
property has acted for the benefit of
all lien-holders, and thus far his ex-
penses should be placed in advance of
the lein holders, but so far as running
the property or doing anything that
is not strictly for it's presery alton, or
keep the property and preserve it, the
courts hold uniformly, as say, that
such expenses are not ahead of the
liens upon the property. The supreme
court of the United States has spoken
very plainly upon this matter.
Two at least, of the federal circuit
court judges have likewise, and the
matter has been in litigation in differ
ent states to some extent, and the rule
is uniform SO far as we know. We are
cited to the case in Texas. From the
quotations made from the case it does
not appear that the court preformed
anything but the necessary expenses
for maintaining the property and pre-
serving it. And while we have not
seen that case and read it, yet we are
inclined to think that it is no excep-
tion to the rule as stated.
That being the case as to these liens.
| would say first, the receiver in plac-
ing his accounts before the court in
Cuyahoga county made no attempt
whatever to separate those expenses
that were necessary for the preserve
tion of the property and those expen-
ses necessary in running the plant /;
that being true, he has mingled those
for which he cannot have priority with
those which he might have had prior
ity. There is no evidence before us to
separate them. He has left his case in
this shape before us. That being the
case, and it appearing clearly that the
largest items in that are such that he
could not supersede the mechanic g
liens, we hold that the mechanics
liens have prioity over the allowance
made to him in toto.
As to Norton's lein, we hold that
Norton has lein upon this property
for what he did.
AS to Wager's, who did the grading
around there and some miscellaneous
work he has no lien. The statue does
not give him lien.
1t may be said, although it was not
claimed here, that when the Horr's
bought this property, as they did, they
bought the entire property. We think
that is hardly true. Suppose that
Mary had retained her title to this
property, had not become insane, al
though she had repudated that con-
tract, yet while the contract was out
standing these mechanics had gone on
to that property and performed LABOR
and done work there and asserted
their liens against it. They were on
there, not as trespassers, but they
went out there by reason of some in
terest that the corporation had in this
property at the time they went on, al
though they lost their interests after
wards, and, they loosing that interest
it is lost as to. the lien holders. Now
that being so, and the Horrs buying
with notice Of all those facts. we think
We cannot treat these machanic lien.
holders as mere trespassers, going or
without any right at all building or
other persons property without any
sanction. That being true we thini
the equity Of the case is, that the en-
tire property should be sold; that il
our decree. The costs of this actor
shall be paid first. The Horrs shal
then be paid 5000, without interest
Then the mechanics liens, all but thu
one lein, pro-rata with the balance
then the receivers fees, or what ha
been allowed the receiver.
; As to the question as to whether tn,
court in Cuyahoga county had an,
authority to appoint this receiver, w
think there was such authority in tina
court. That will be the decree in thi
case.