Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1897-07-24


abling it to carry on its business. Al
order may be drawn in accordance witt
the views expressed by the Court.
Judge Morris said: III this proposition
for the obtaining OF the cars was on
which involved the imposing OF obligation
on the property to pay the purchase mon
ey. / should regard 1t In different light
As II is, 1 find myself in accord with th'
announcement just made by the Circuit
Judge. and desire 10 express III accord.
From the contract that II pr sed TO
make. IL appears that the al sums
which would have to be paid n the
income are less than the pre-, lnua
mileage paid for the use of ca| sing
to other railroads, so, there Is
no additional charge put on ~
the hands OF the receivers.
stion. In fact II the hgv
given as the result OF the
tinue I'm the future, Their,
OF over hundred thou
amount which will be
for the purchase OF the
much less than the US
paid for the use OF cars
longing to other lines, W
cars now petitioned for ard
There will also be this
vantage: AS these pre-ps
made. in the course OF ten
cars will become tho absolute
the Baltimore & Ohio railroad
II this contract was going 10 inficV
bondhoders any burden on their son
or anything which could come In betN
them and the realizing OF the frultsv
their mortgages. / should look upon Il
a different light.
There will be no less net revenue rs.S
ceived by the receivers during the con.
tinuance OF their operation OF the road,
and at the end OF the time when they
shall cease 10 operate Il, into whosoevei
hands the railroad property may go, u
will be optional with them either TO abb
rogate the contract. or accept Il With the
payments made, the cans being reasonably
necessary 10 maintain the business OF the
company, and furnish facilities that ara
reasonably required for its use. | there
fore assent to the passing OF the order"
At the hearing OF the petition OF Chas.
II. Coster. J. w. Brown and James Bond.
trustees under the Chicago division mort
gage after Mr.. John @. Johnson and Fran
els J.. Stetson. as counsel for the trustees,
had presented an elaborate arguncRt-tp @
prove that the trustees should be allow
ed to sue the Baltimore & Ohio receiver
and then get immediate POSSESSION OF "a
Chicago division from them. and after N
Court had strongly intimated It's dissenfV
while Mr.. Bond, counsel for the receivers
was resisting the application for leave e
sue the receivers, counsel for tho trustees
interrupted the argument TO suggest that
they did not care 10 press the application
for leave 20 sue the receivers II Il was
understood that they would not be In con-
tempt OF the Court by bringing suit against
the Railroad Company and not the re-
ceivers Mr. Bond stated that In his opin.
ion they had perfect right TO sue the
Railroad Company, bat had no right 70
make the receivers parties. so as 10 de-
prive the Court OF the possession OF tho
property through the receivers. tiiereupon.
Judge Morris having stated what he unr :
derstood 10 be tho matters on which the
counsel agreed. the Court passed an or
der retaining the petition OF the trustees
for future action. stating that the under
standing that the trustees might institute
against railroad companies. but not
against the receivers and that II in any
such suits they should obtain an order
appointing a receiver OF the Chicago diyis-
ion. they might then apply 10 the Court
for an order giving such receiver posses
sion, but that they should not attempt TO
obtain possession from the present re-
ceivers without first applying 70 the Cir
cult Court OF the United States for the
district OF Maryland.
This leaves the trustees free TO 30 ghat
Mr.. Bond conceded their right TO do. such
suits being open 10 defense on the ground
that the trustees have no right 10 proceed
until after ninety days default. but there
can be no disturbances OF possession OF the
Circuit Court for Maryland without first
obtaining an order from that Court.
Counsel for both sides expressed them
selves as satisfied with the order, but the
lawyers who were in Court, mt engaged
in the case. seemed to regard Il as con-
cession to the possession OF the receivers