The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1897-08-13
Mrs. Hopkins Wins her Suit.

Hopkins VS.. the Satsop Railroad Com
pany ct al, in the superior court of
Mason county. In August, 1886 the
railroad company made lis mortgage
or deed Of trust to A. 1T. Anderson as
trustee for the purpose OF securing
bonds issued and to be issued by the
company to the mount OF $4,000 per
mile of its road, then or thereafter to
be constructed. Mrs. Hopkins be-
came the owner Of five of these bonds,
and in this action sought to foreclose
the mortgage that she might recover
upon her bonds. The Satsop Railway
Compay in 1891 conveyed it's property
to the Washington Southern Railway
Company, the said grantee assuming
and agreeing to pay all the indebted
ness OF the Satsop Railway Company.
In May, 1894, the Bank of British Co.
lumbia commenced an action against
the Washington Southern Railway
Company to recover for money loan
ed in which one Isaac Dobson was ap-
pointed receiver. Prior to this the
Washington Southern Railway Com
pany had entered into contract with
Henry and Balch for the construction
of cutoff about five miles in length,
which was intended to lower the grade
and shorten the line OF the railroad
In the action brought by the Bank
of British Columbia d bison, as receiv-
er, was authorized to issue receivers
certificates to the extent of $25, 900 for
the purpose of defraying the expense
in the construction of the said cut off,
and also for other purposes. Mrs.
Hopkins was not made a party of this
action, and never had any notice of
the tendency thereof The First Ma
tional bank and the National Bank of
Commerce were the holders of a por-
tion of the bonds of the same series as
those held by Mrs. Hopkins. They
consented to the issue of the receivers
certificates, and at the sale of the
property which was ordered by the
court, j. d. Lowman bid the same in,
in the interest of said banks and as q
part of the purchase price rendered a
portion of the bonds held by them.
The purchaser and others interested
then undertook scheme OF reorganiz-
alton, to which Mrs. Hopkins was not
made party, and when her action
was brought, defended the same upon
the ground that she had been cut off
by the suit of the Bank of British
Columbia and by this reorganization
agreement, and further defense was
interposed that Mrs. Hopkins was rep
resented at the sale by Ralph, her son,
and she was thereby bound by what
ever he did in the premises.
The court in passing upon the case
finds that Ralph Hopkins was not act
ing as his mothers agent at all. The
court further says: II have no doubt
but that receiver may under orders
of the court incur expenses that will
take precedence of a mortgage, but all
parties must have their day in court
before this can be done. Further, that
all matters in relation thereto may be
presented at the time of the attempted
foreclosure, and if at that time it ap-
pears that what was done was proper,
it will be allowed, but that the court
must look at it from all the c1rcum
stances at the time it was brought to
it's attention, and not shut it's eyes to
the fact of the result of the improve
ment. If the receiver does the work
without notice to interested parties,
the court record is open to inspection,
and the purchasers of certificates must
take them with notice that a showing
may hereafter be made which will re-
uuire change in their relation to
parties without notice. The court
further holds that parties cannot be
improved out of their property, and
that there is no justice in the improv-
ing OF a persons property without his
knowledge or consent, and then say
ing after the improvement is made
that the whole property will not more
than pay for the Improvements, and
that the party is benefited thereby.
The purchaser must take. subject to
showing, if any be made, that the
parties are not so benefited if they do
not make them parties to the suit,
who should be and ought in justice to
be heard"
In this case the court further says
that Mrs. Hopkins appears to have
been Intentionally omitted for fear of
such showing as she might have made,
if she had known of the action that
was being taken.
Another branch of the case, the
court says, seems to him inequitable
and unjust, viz: That of permitting