The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-12-05


 aMrquette al d constituent companies was upwards of $5l.0oo.00o: that of the Chicago. Cincinnati and Louisville was more than $e.500.00o and that of the Toledo Railway and Terminal Company was $s.500.o00. The floating debt of the defendant company was S6,sz5. 900, exclusive of judgments to the amount of over $50s000.
 It was further asserted that the cash assets of the defendant at the close of business on December 2, 1905, including the cash assets of the Pere Marquette amounted to less than $t0O,- 900. On January 1. 1908 there will be- come due interest on the four per cent. Pere Marduette bonds which were ls- sued for tho purchase nf the Chicago, Cincinnati and Louisville Railway and had been assumed by the defendant company but the defendant had not funds with which to pay such inter- est Fixed charges due or about to be- come due amount to $5,000.000 for which the estimated December earn ings of $1.650.000. not over s50,000 in bills receivable and not more than S1o0.000 cash were available. The funded debt of the defendant and con stituent companies consisted of up- wards of sixteen different series of bonds ecured by mortgage or other trust agreements covering various parts of the lines of the defendants and issued at various times for vary ing periods.
 It was alleged that one of the banks from which the defendant had borrow ed $1oo.o00 on demand paper had ar bitrarily charged the amount against q deposit account of the defendant at the same bank without the consent of the defendant although the defen- dant's check for larger amount was outstanding and other depositors hold demand notes and are liable to take similar action. The defendant com- pany was therefore declared to be in a state of insolvency and the plaintiff asked for the protection of himself and all other credftora that a receiver be appointed as otherwise 1t would be im- possible for the defendant to continue operations and it would lose It's assets unless such action. be taken. The re- ceivership was asked to include the leasehold of the Pere Marquette.
 Attorney 8. w.. stevens at once pre- scented the answer of the company ex- plaininr that 1t was sworn to by vice presid q Brownell of the Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton on the authority of, the board of directors. Insolveny was admitted, for the statement of de- fieit of more than $6,0o0.00o with var ious suits threatening being made in the answer.
 Judge Lurton was reluctant. he said. to make the appointment but under the circumstances he felt that 1t was for the interest of all concerned but he said that while he would agree to a receivership he wanted to say that he would not agree to the naming Of any railroad man who might run the property in some special interest but would prefer to appoint some one who was in no way connected with ratt- roads or this proceeding.
 The suggestion of the name of Jud- son Harmon was accepted by attor- neys for both plaintiqff and defendant and was heartily approved by Judge Lurton. who thereupon named n nm na as receiver, fixing the bond at $i0O,O00 An anciliiary application was then made by MT. Maxwell on behalf of Walter D. Horn of New York, q credi- tor of tho Fefe Marquette to the ex- tent of sSas, ,s5s.s4 for the appointment of a receiver also tor that property.
 If was alleged that on Jam due interest to the amount of st0i,- Sso on Pere Marquette bonds for wbich that company has no deposit or pledge ar rnortgave, There are outstanding of more than $t000,000 the funded debt on December 1. 1905, was over s14,000.000 in twenty-four series of bonds. The bonded debt of the Chi cago, Cincinnati and Louisville IS Seov.- GOO which the Pore Marquette has as- stunned but was unable to pay.
 It was further alleged that $60O,0O0 vvaa due to the State of Michigan for taxes which the defendant was unable to pay. New equipment for the road was needed but there was no means of providing for the same. All Inter eets were declared to demand protec- tior, and to unite in this application. The pere M,,rauette owns in its own right 1 i 500 miles of railroad and has leases ana contracts on over 700 miles addi- | tional trackage and the annual gross | of the road are upwards or $10. 100000.
 An answer similar to that filed In the | first and main procedure was present. ed by Attorney Stevens admitting in- solvency and stating that the best in terests of all creditors would be con- | served by the action proposed. The court thereupon ordered the placing of | he Pore Marquette insofar as 1t was | covered by the leases of the Cincinnati. | Hamilton and Dayton In the hands of | receiver and named MT. Judson Har- non for that position also In connection i with this road. His bond was fixed at | HOG, ,00O as in the case of the Pere Mar Iuette.
 The decree in both cases was filed im- nediateiy. the second decree being di- .ected to the Clerk of the United States Court at Detroit. Mich.. for entry.
 MT. Harmon qualified. presenting Iecurity bond. which was approved. The history of the Cincinnati, Hamil- | on and Dayton has been full of incl | lent and at some times somewhat sem It has had many owners, | Lmong them Brayton Ives. Senator Cal in Brice, Eugene Zimmerman. the Erie md j. Pierpont Morgan, who relieved he Erie of the road few days ago.