New-York tribune., 1908-01-14
JUDGELAC0MBE UPHELD
Opinion from U. S. Supreme Court
on Rail,cay ReceiUership.

Washington Jan. 15.-In opinion by' justice
Peckham the Supreme Court of the United States
denied to-day the petition recently nied Tor the
issuance of writ of mandamus against Judge La
combe OF the Federal Court, of New YORK, oi-
recting him TO vscate orders for the appointment
of receivers for the Metropolitan street Railway
and the New York City Company The cases We're
those of F. S. Rosenberg, Daniel Gallagher ana
Joseph Konrad. 1t alleged that all OF them
were creditors of the railroad companies on ac-
count of damages allowed for injuries received
on the roads They charged bad faith in the pro-
ceeding for a receiver and contended that the
Federal Court was without jurisdiction.
Justice Peckham's opinion was based entirely on
the ground that the Circuit Court not with
out jurisdiction In the
On the charge that there had been an under
standing between the street railway companies and
the corporations at whose instance a receiver was
appointed, Justice Peckham said:
In this case we can find evidence of colluson
appear that the parties to the suit oeslreo
should 'n be taken in hand by the Circuit Court Of
the United States and to tnat end when n ehe
lnents in he bin and united IN the request or th1
erot Judge % 6et there is no Claim made that
the averments in the bill were untrue or that tne
ants did not in fact exist nor is any question
made to the citizenship of the compianants ana :,
practised for the PURPOSE of thereby creating case
to give jurisdiction to the Federal Court.
The opinion ends as follows:
From this review OF the various QueStioHS pi
sented to il appears that the Circuit Court nad
Jurisdiction in the suit brought before IT, ana
therefore the application of the petitioners ior q
manda mus for prohibition must be Denied
While holding not unmlnurul OF the
fact that a court is very unsatisfactory BODY 10
administer the affairs of railroad as gong con-
Germ, and feel that the possession OF SuCn
property by the through its receivers s9ould
not be unnecessarily delayed. There are cases
and the in question seems a very strong IN
stance-where, order to preserve the property
for all interest 1t is a necessity to resort TO such
a remedy. refusal to appoint a receiver would
have led in this instance almost inevitably 10 q
very large and useless sacrifice in value OF a
great property operated as one system through Ihe
Various streets of Il populous city and such a re-
fusal would also have led to endless confusion
among the various creditors in their efforts TO
enforce their claims and to a very great moon
venience to the many thousands OF people VINO
necessarily use the road every day of their lives
by Roger Foster, representing a number of nesil-
gence claimants. Some time ago he applied 10
Judge Lacombe for permission to intervene on be-
half of his clients in the suit in which the federal
receivers for the New York City Railway were
appointed. This permission being denied, Mr. Eos
ter went to the United States Supreme Court IN
ar effort to prove that Judge Lacombe was with
out jurisdiction. This suit was looked upon in the
light of test case.