Danville intelligencer. [volume] (Danville, Pa.) 1859-1907, 1906-04-27
REFUSES TO
APPOINT A RECEIVER

A short session of court was held
yesterday forenoon with President
Judge g. @. Evans and associates, Blee
and Wagner. ON the bench. The prin-
cipal business ON hand was the hand
ing down of an opinion in re petition
of H. F. -Sauville g. Go. ct al, for ap-
pointment of receiver for the Danville
and Sunbury street railway company.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
"The petitioners presented their
petition to the court on the goth day
Of February, 1905. setting forth inter-
ALA that the Danville and Sunbury
street railway company is corpora
tion created under the Act of Assem-
bly, of May IA, 1889, and the amend
ments thereto: that they are creditors
of the Danville and Sunbury street
railway company and that said street
railway company is insolvent. That
the street railway company has con-
fessed Judgment to Charles F. Hancock,
in trust, for the sum of $45, 847. Al for
certain creditors of the street railway
company that execution was issued
on said Judgment and that all the cor
porate franchises, rights and personal
property belonging to the said corpora
tion were levied upon and advertised
to be sold at sheriff's sale, February
23, 1905 that the said street railway
company had not made an assignment
for the benefit Of its creditors and that
it was for the best interest of the cred
itors of the street railway company
that receiver be appointed to take
charge of the assets, rights and fran
chises of said corporation to the end
that the same may not be lost through
the ordinary course of sheriff's sale.
"On the same day rule was grant
ed to show cause why receiver should
not be granted as prayed for.
Answer has been made under oath
by the Danville and Sunbury street
railway company admitting that the
petitioners are creditors and that the
street railway company is insolvent ;
and denying that it is for the best in
terest of all the creditors that receiv
er be appointed and further averring
that the Judgment confessed to Charles
P. Hancock in trust, for the sum of
$45. 847 Al and the execution issued
thereon is in effect an assignment for
the benefit of creditors and that the
appointment of receiver would be
detrimental to the creditors of the cor
poration and to the corporation it
self; that there is no property of the
street railway to conserve; that there
is no purpose for which a receiver
could be appointed which will not be
accomplished by sheriff's sale; that
the petitioners and all other creditors
are protected by the Judgment confess
ed and that it was for their protection
and for their payment that the judg
ment was confessed and the execution
issued and that the appointment of a
receiver would be inexpedient and
harmful.
"The appointment of receiver is the
exercise of power in aid of proceed
ing in equity. The court must be con-
vinced that it is needful and is the ap-
propriate means of securing proper
end. Such an appointment is a strong
measure and not to be exercised doubt
ingly."
The opinion stated that the court
found from the evidence that the judg
ment confessed to Charles P. Hancock,
in trust, for $45, 847.4 Al was confessed
for the benefit of all the creditors of
the street railway company, including
the petitioners; that the street railway
company is insolvent and that it would
not be for the best interest of the cred
itors of the Danville g. Sunbury street
railway company to appoint receiver
at this time.
1--WE can see no good purpose to be
served or accomplished by appointing
a receiver" Several authorities were
quoted in this connection.
mo harm can come to the petition
ers if we permit the sheriff to proceed
with.the sale, because the amount of
the petitioners claim is enormously
stated in the Judgment confessed to
Charles P Hancock, in trust. All
creditors of the insolvent corporation
are entitled TO share pro rata in the
distribution of the proceeds.
The appointment of receiver is in
the discretion of the court, not to be
exercised arbitrarily or doubtingly,
but only where it is clear that it is
needful and is the appropriate means
of securing a proper end.
And now April %, 1906, rule is dis
charged.
CHARLES @. EVANS, p. J.
On motion of William Kase West ex-
ceptions were noted for the petitioners
and the bill was sealed by the court.
Just what the status of affairs relat-
ing to the street railway company is
at present is not clear. The petitioners
can appeal the case in twenty days.
Such action would tie up proceedings
for nearly a year.