New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-10
RECEIVER PERMANENT.
Foreclosure Suits against the Ship
building Company Consolidated

-s~, r-,rl,a+ri.l ln tbe United States Disiri1t
s-ourt 81 Newark yesterday signed decree i'''
snr James Smith. jr. 81 Newark. peih'4l',--
...,,- of the T'nited States Shiphuicing 'olit'"-
end fixed his bond 20 Sl"'fa 1IoEe i-,ts..
=, executed an order per,vitting the coi-"ii-
50, ~ she two foreclosure suits against me ''"
,-.rr one hv the N,rcantiie Trust '"inia--s.
--eur York for SIC Onaoa. on account or '--7 az
,ror.r,re. and the other on the N'tl'"
-, =. which the Ncu-Tork Security ana
-T-f4- Company is tri'eteo.
Five motions o. au. made by c'nnsel '"'
-op,parv two week. ago. were adjudicatel iH '-'
court THE motion ancnd the ers"ef "l il e'i'
nam, o. the Coulliu petition. admitting lliS'
~ allowed by the court u was deeiara tha' UT
,,,,io- that Charles y shwah be made party
-,-,.,f4rt in -.o trrlliu suit was unne0essail D.
,-ee ~ tho aeraarncrt entered into i0 respNe' z"
,.,--artzation. The motion that nfo'eeoIhES 2"
1.-.-Itfou to held ir open court was leIl open
7se l.f-.r,7f-.l eaia 10 felt that The testimony
,,,,l5 ra. 1r saxon other than by master as ms
-,,, r,1r-rar,erfs made it isrrr1ctc7He for L"
COM. 90 lear fhe feetimony. while "fnHr JUICES
,,-ore in t. eaue situation. u was expected tha'
-te counsel would come 10 some understanding in
tho matter. ..- co.
80 Defitiorers in tho "onln suit; r. Y ldnoo-
s,,,-,- o. Ncv-a-k Tor the receiver; W u Guthrie
"a charles g. Dcrur. Tor the company MI
s-orliss Tor the Mercantile Trust company anu
I n " CutcLcon. FOR the New-horK So'uilH
T,rfref frofnnqrt. There some hi0's-0H.N'
-,.rr tro form o. order by the court Nr. Alnoa-
s-,- Tor tho receiver said 10 did not oppose 'ne
,-s.- -onsolidatinc tho two suits. Mr. lnteffnFef
lioofed % tho form Of order. because there were
several intorvenors I'm tho suit who bad nol pc"
.e-yod with notice ~ tho proposed decree WHO"
also contained no recital Of tho interventons. 10
s-oyssor Tor allowances and no provision loI o'Ii
ceiling the temporary bond of the receiver i'e
5ec-eo sbcfiII also contain. HIr IntorUycr ihoul''
:. ,royislon Tor thc appointment - a master I"
-,ass upon contested claims against Inc ''"il"'F'
81 Guthrie said the statutes Of Ne"-''IS'l N''.
So receiver mower 80 pass upon the claims or
-sftors and 81 would he better 10 allow disputed
oi.,,,s - como INDEPENDENTLY before me couIIl-
- vas however. provided in The decree W.. ~.
receiver might Apply go ne F'uIL L.. 7-..--
o-7ers and that appeared 20 meet ny. ''.'''-
MYERS objection. ---, .,---,-,s
r,erTuissior 90 intervene Tho TACT in.il I'm 80
Sad no notice would not prevent MN llNih a15 IL
~rtine the question ~ Insolvency ahl I.ini--
-,-et,-ershfr rcrrnanonf FINALLY w FullIlt as
a. Trnfcrr1Ser 81 DE- would D." willing 10 NOV ~
= docroe and she reply was DID me ann M
T,,Sve JSi-xnatricl then said DE would grant ile
~,rfiou Tho order WAS submitted by Mt- l''IilLll-
.lou-inr company 20 Tie "a SnlIieltiit'ti si'-
aGn1sffing insolvency. Mr. lnfernfeT mace SUI
,tiactiors ID the form ~ decree CONSOLIDATING lIe
sv.o euits and some changes were lnaue III lIe -
Fv Nm Guthrie Mr. Ludabury said The receiver
would not make coilusve defence 81 ule s.t,r
In fhe discussion the question OF c.illI1i-l
-ba foidrr OF testimony IN open court Judge NJ y
r,afrfck remarked that he presumed tntt ne
- ot5esffonug before the master. which he mE
ada had brought about the agreement anlor6 m
counsel was about ended NJ. lnternEer al-
sp-eTed that that was what he believed.