The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-05-11
OBJECT TO RECEIVER.
But Anheuser-Busch Willing to Quit
the State.

The closing argument of long
days work in the supreme court va
on the Anheuser-Busch case. Inc
state is seeking to have the Ami euser-
Busch company put under the charge
of the three receivers who are taxing
care of the property of the other
breweries which have ben doing pusi-
ness in Kansas contrary to law
w. H. Rossington and Charles Blood
Smith were both on hand to represent
the brewery. They contended that
while they were willing to confess
judgment in custer. and cease doing
business in Kansas, they objected to
the appointment of receiver anu
asked permission to withdraw their
property from the state
w. H. Rossington representing the
Anheuser-Bu company, said the
supreme court is of limited jurisdiction
and can exercise no judicial power ex-
cept that granted by the state consul
tuition. In the absence of statute
governing its jurisdiction in quo war
ranto, it would be bound by the rules
of common law. In the latter instance
a court exercising Jurisdiction In quo
warranto has no power beyond the is
sue of writ or judgment of custer,
and the recovery to the sovereign OF
the corporate franchises. 1t can not
appoint a receiver.
The rule of law he claimed, is that
a receiver could be appointed to con-
serve the property of the corporation
for the benefit of creditors and share
holders; a receiver could only be APP
pointed or a proceeding Instituted
after a judgment of custer had been
rendered; the court is without jur1s-
diction to appoint a preliminary re-
ceiver, when the power is to be exer-
ciSed after judgment, and a clear case
of injury loss, damage or derogation
of rights must be shown in the prop
erty before a receiver can be ap-
pointed.
The inquiry of the court is claimed
to be confined to the matters necessary
to determine the question whether it
will enter judgment of custer. the
court can not assess punishment upon
a corporations derelfctions, except 10
GUST it from exercise of its franchise.
There is no law in Kansas giving the
court the right to destroy property;
personal or real. A court of general
jurisdiction shall try a common law
offense.
The attorney general pleaded that
the state had right to take control
of property to prevent the law being
violated and later to sell that prop
cry to prevent the violation of the
law. Il do not think that the state
ment of the company that it would
quit business in the state was made in
good faith" said the attorney general.
when the preliminary hearing was
held it was stated that the company
would not violate it and al; is reiter-
ated in the brief filed. But in taking
and in the affidavits which
he agents of the company in Topeka
1T least have kept on selling beer to
he customers since the injunction
was granted the same as before. We
nave evidence to show that the To-
oeka agent did a business of thirty
eight thousand dollars since the first
IF the year and twelve thousand dol |
ars in April, the injunction being |
granted about the middle of the !
month. In Leavenworth we found !
hat car of beer had been shipped |
rom st. Louis to Theodore Link since |
he order was granted. George Link |
vas the agent of the company and |
he company accepted service through |
linn. A few days after the order was |
ssued George Link turned the bust |
less over to his son, Theodore, new |
,ank account was settled. Theodore |
link now runs the business entirely. |
These dispositions and affidavits show /
hat there has been no change in the |
methods since the order
vas granted