The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-07-06

yesterday In the case o; the California
Safe Deposit and Trust Company VS.. The
Yakima Investment Company. In wnich
there were a number Of inTerveDtions- The
case was one growing OFT OF the entan-
clements OF the dsfendan: company's at
fairs succeeding the suicide of Paul
Schulz. and the decision of yesterday was
upon the claims a. rrefeTrsd creditors OF
ii. X. Owens and George j Mclean, pur-
Suant 10 a stipulation in writing whereby
the parties cortended that the cause might
be heard, a. 20 the claims OF the petition
srs. at Seattle.
The court found that Fl. X. Owens, prior
TO the rtceivership. was employed by the
Yakima Investment Company as consult
ing engineer IN the construction Of canals
and irrigation bitches. The service was
stipulated at $50 per month and was rem
cered during the tima eIapsing between
June, 1883. and December 1891. He was not
az all times employed by the defendant
company during the period named. IN No
Vember. 1s94. he received from $ hUize Ger
tihcates OF Indebtedness amounting 10
81. 80. and for later services other certili~
Gates were issued. the entire amount being
S2,Je9. No part OF the sum has been pad
and action was brought on the segregated
sums al per cent. from the time of issue
The claim OF Mclean wa< also based IN
certificates amounting 10 si90.s5. The
findings say that mo part of the indeO.
edness of the defendant evidenced by sad
certificates. has been paid. ana the amount
thereof. with legal interest from the dates
or said certificates respectively. il law
fully due TO said petitioner Mclean, from
the def ndant. OF the amount claimed by
the petitioner Mclean. SAB. and no more,
IS due To him for wages earned by MIN IN
the service Of the def ndant.''
The balance appears 10 be that of Ger
tihcates that the petitioner became legally
nos I'D IF 81 1.
claim.
The Decision
The decision continues:
SAID petitioners have not acquired any
lien upon any part OF the property of the
defendant company
II = the oeclSson of the court that these
claims are not preferential debts, but the
petitioners are entitled 10 have Judgment
In their favor for the amounts due 10 them
respectively, as found and specified above,
and 20 have said amounts paid out OF any
surplus moneys winch may come into the
hands or the receivers OF b. pad into the
registry OF the court, over and above what
may be ilece ssary to pay the costs and ex-
penses OF the proceedings herein, and the
amount OF the principal and interest due
and TO accrue upon the receivers certlfi-
Gates. authorized by orders OF this court
ard The PRINCIPAL and interest due to the
paa.I,tiii upon the mortgage in suit.
he modern rule Of equity winch Civ :
preference and priority ~ debts incurred
IN the operation IF railroads. over mort
g'g eNisiHls a the me ~ incarrlng SUI h
debts as defined IN the case Of Fosdlck vs.
Schali. y L. :. 1896, and extended in
the eases OF Mltenberger VS. Logansuort
Halfway Company. To- T.. s. 2s6 Si4: I'm n
way company. III L. s, i3i isl. and Union
Trust Company US, Morrison, Is L. :
5si-bb. rests upon necessity, and has been
evolved from conditions peculiar 10 the
nature of railroad franchises Railways
are public highways. and Il Is not optional
With their owners 20 operate them or not
1hey must he kept going TO entitle the
owners 10 continuance OF their fran
Chlsss, and the necessary expenses OF op-
GRAFTON must be paid.
1t is serious question whether or OF
the same rule may be property applied in
eases where the mortgaged property con-
sistS OF canals and works for irrigating
10 pass upon this question AT present. as
the limitations Of the rule exclude the
claims Of these petitioners as preferential
debts The services OF the Petitioner Dv.~
ems. TOT which mpensatiou * due. were
all performed IN the original construction
az the Defendants irr eating works In
The case OF Mclean. onll a triaing amount
of s. ~ of his claim e for labor performed
iu work that may he denominated opera
ilon. An attempt was made by counsel, IN
the argument 10 make a distinction lee
fwstu the construct on OF lateral ditchg-s
from the main canals, on the ground that
the iatersls are extended from time 10
time. as required in The actual operation
Of conducting water 10 the tracts TO be
irrigated, But ~ ire tight or tire authori-
ties / must hold that the difference is not
sufficient 10 distinguish the case from
other cases in which the general rule has
been limited In its application So as 10
exclude debts for cost OF OK ginai con-
struction. In the case OF Railroad Com
pauy Vs. Hamilton, "a I. : get aas the
supreme court % the United States In -
opinion 6x NJ Justice Brewer held en-
phattcalIv that,
e" \ recorded mortgage given by rail-
road company on It's roadhesi ana other
property. creates Hen. whose prior .tv
cannot Ia displaced thereafter atrectlv
ty n mortgage given by I'M company. ncr
indirectly bt contract between the cam-
panv and Al tH.rd party for the erection Il
hu'}a.uSs or other works q original con-
sfr9ctioD.
THE facts o. that case afford ground for
ContendinE win cutie rs much easdn rs
lu tvs case row under consideration tar
the Ia hor for which compensation va
claimed should ts ClAsset s. work naces-
SRry in operation. bar 80 the opinion of rha
court oTdS seem 70 have been carefully
= le-t-,i t. include All structures and sd
dti0us made AFTER the road sd been ut,t
lu orersttcu in tea same category as The
original Iai@ Hua ~ railway. and he
broad rsie laid down n The seatenre above
quoted is fuSt - applicable 20 this case
81 20 me ore N which The decision was