The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-05-26

der a .Ieezse OF permission extended by
Ross 10 Cen. J. II. Bryant his predeceS-
xo-. Therefore, he stands IN danger of be-
Ing arrested for contempt OF the Federal
court as an .niividua. IL he continues 70
enter and occupy the Ross property as re-
sesser. acting under the direction of the
superior court.
The decision CT Judge Hanford viii not
interfere with the operation OF ths
mine said Judge William Hickman
Moore. Of the superior court yesterday
That il the way / understand the de-
cis.en- II IL personal to Hickman and viii
not interfere with the discharge OF MS
duties as receiver"
Thus Is raised an interesting question
which the attorneys for the receiver and
Tor M. Ross VIII be engaged In solving
FOR some little time yet. The Significance
OF the decision obtained by Mr.. Ross is
apparent IN the light Of the facts that
have preceded the present litigation. IL
will be well remembered that between the
Manhattan Trust Company, representing
The bonGhoiders. ard the creditors of the
company. among which are E. c. Neu-
fielder, Murphy Grant and Co. and
other veIl-known people and firms. there
has been Evs.y controversy over the
possession Of the property owned by the
Coal and Iron Company. The creditors
have alleged fraud against the Trust
this. that they secured the removal OF
Gen. Bryant as receiver and the appoint
ment OF a new receiver
The Ross property consists OF a quarter
section OF coal lands lying midway be
tween two quarter sections owned by the
company and over which Mr. Hickman
nolds sway as Receiver, appointed By the
superior court. In order 10 enter the
quarter section upon which the coal Is
sfxyas ~ h
pass through tunnel traversing the Ross
property. To reach the land in which the
mining is being conducted would require
the building of large amount OF rail line
and would Involve large expenditure Of
money.
The creditors Of the company hope to
prevent tbs from becoming necessity.
1T 10 alleged that Mr.. Ross in demanding
that the receiver and his agents De pro-
hi5ited from entering on his land. - act
ins in concert with the bondhoiders OF the
company.
The position taken by the attorney for
the receiver IS that his rights on the Ross
premises as receiver. aching under the per-
mission and license exieuded By Ross 10
Bryant. have not yet been adjudicated.
Consequently IL is held that the operations
Of the mine will not be interrupted on ac-
count Of Judge Hanford.s decision
In order 10 evict Receiver Hickman the
attorneys say II viii be necessary for
counsel FOR Mfr Ross TO obtain perm.s-
SION or the superior court 10 sue the re-
ceiver. This is usually regarded as a per-
functory matter. But first the attorney
seeking TO sue the receiver must relate in
his petition his cause of action, which
appearing probable 10 the court, permits
sion Ia granted Should the court take
the ground that. In the present case, Mr.
Ross complaint against Receiver Heck
man is not tenable, no one can predict
with certainty the complications that
might follow.
The property OF the Seattle Coal ana
Iron Company. which has been In con-
trove1sy for 80 many years between the
various interests in the company, con-
sists OF a valuable mine at Issaquah (Gii-
mani and the bunkers of the company
situated on the water front 1t the foot Of
Madison street;