The Sentinel=record., 1913-12-27
FRISCO RECEIVERS ORDERED TO FILE THEM IF THEY HAVE A
 GOOD CASE.
MAY CALL FOR A REFUND
Sale of Feeders by Syndcates 5eliev- ed to Have Been to the Oetriment Follow.

St. Louis, Dec. 26.-Receivers of the St. Louis and San Francisco Rail- road today were directed by Judge Sanborn in the United States district court to bring restitution suits against present and former directors of the railroad.
 The courts order is qualified only by the proyiso that suits shall be brought if the special counsel appoint ed today believe that they can be sue cessfully maintained
 That the special counsel will be convinced that such suits would be successful is agreed. as the attorneys are the men who represented Wm. w. Niles of New York, Frisco stock holder, in his petition for permission to bring restitution suits.
 The suits are to be based on the sale to the Frisco of feeder lines that were represented by syndicates of which certain Frisco officials were members.
 The order of the court today was two-fold it denied the application of Mir. Niles for permission to file suit and it directed the receivers to file the suit if their counsel thought the action could be maintained.
 The court appointed as special counsel for the receivers John D. Johnson and Lewis Johnson, who were attorneys for Niles. These at torneys were given exclusive charge of the suits which thereby were taken from the jurisdiction of w. F. Evans. general counsel for the Frisco rail- road, and of Henry s. Priest, counsel for the receivers.
 Attorneys for Niles argued that the receivers were not the proper per sons to bring suit, because two Of them. w. C. Nixon and N. w. Riddle, had been associated in Frisco affairs with those whom it was desired to sue.
 Judge Sanborn ruled against this point, and held that the receivers were the proper persons to bring this suit. However he vested special au- thority to bring the government suit in James S. Lusk. MT. Lusk lives in St Louis.
 Judge Sanborn, in his decision, was careful to make plain that he had formed no opinion as to the justice of the allegations against former Of ficials of the railroad.
 "The transactions of which com plaint is made" the decision says, are so varied and complicated and the rights and liabilities of the par ties concerned are conditioned by so many facts and circumstances that the court cannot form, and ought not to form, any opinion concerning these rights or the liability of any party until each of the parties in interest has had opportunity to present the facts on which he relies and to be heard upon the claims of the parties interested, and no such opinion has been formed or will be formed
 The general charge against the former officials and directors of the Frisco company is that they purehas- ed railroad properties in which they were pecuniarily interested, to the le- gal injury of the Frisco and to their own advantage. and the court is of the opinion that these petitions dis close facts sufficient to entitle the complainants to institute suit against some of these former off cials'
 Discussing whether the suit should be brought by any individual stock holder or by the receivers, Judge San born said:
 "The legal injury was to the Frisco company and the cause of action ac- crued to that company before the re- ceivers were appointed
 "When they were appointed that cause of action was transferred so and vested in the receivers. It IS their duty as receivers to enforce II just causes of action coming to them from the Frisco company, to colleei ali moneys due to it and to apply the
 moneys thus collected first, to the payment of it's creditors and, second to the benefit of it's stockholders, and as the company is insolvent, the in terest of the creditors is far greater than that of the stockholders. Tn this cause receivers represent
 that single suit by them will answer 1 for all and may prevent many differ