The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1915-08-06
SAYS BOND
FOLK CAN
TIE UP DEAL
Have Right To Inter.
vene in d. u. r. Pur-
chase, Says Lawyer
ELECTION IN
NOVEMBER LIKELY

Declaring that Attorney Richard
I. Lawson Is wrong In his contention
that individual bondnolders cannot
intervene to prevent the conveyance
of the d. u. r. properties TO the city.
In spite of the provision of the agree
ment that the trustees Of the bond
holders must be parties TO the suit
to fix the valuation, q prominent De-
troit attorney maintains that IL the
price fixed by the court Is less than
the value OF the bonds. the indivic-
ual bondholders may be able to block
the sale.
III you buy q mortgage, and make
me trustee" he said, II can consent
to the sale Of the property. provided
IL secure for you the face value Of
the mortgage. But II | consent to
the sale of the property at less than
the mortgage calls for. you can stop
me. no matter what agreement ]
have entered into. You do not sur.
render such right to the trustee.
"In this matter. the ID. U. r. II
planning to 60. into court with the
contention that the city has fixed
a minimum value by its offer to pay
the face OF the bonds. X the court
accepts this contention. and fixes
the value at $24.000.000 Tin round
numbers). the bondholders will be
satisfied. But II It fixes the value
of the road at $4,000. 900, as some
people seem to think II will. the In.
dividual bondholders are very likely
to intervene and tie up the sale
But how about the holders of the
bonds of the Fort-st. line, where the
franchises have expired. which
amount to s1,7O0, 000?" he was ask.
ed. Their only security La the prop
erty In the streets. which the city
can order torn up"
They might be satisfied with the
price fixed by the court" was the
reply. But there might be others
who would not be satisfied. They
could intervene and tie up proceed
ings for several years"
Sheriff Oakman said, Thursday
that he has not made up his mine
definitely about the settlement
} I'll have TO see newspaper dis
cussions Of It before I can make u,
my mind" he said. an general.
am IN favor of municipal ownership
but I know very little about tn
: terms Of this agreement. I'd like 4
see the question settled. This ma;
be \ good opportunity. have cor
: hdence In the business ability OF tn
street railway commission, but
want to hear some discussion OF IN
scheme before decide definitely"
Raymond Van SICKLE. attorney an
member Of the Board of Estimate,
Ia another who has not made up hi
mind.
Il want to read the papers and se
what points are brought out" h
said.
Former Judge James o. Murf
said: There's mo use asking M
- about II. ! am and always have bee
r. opposed to municipal ownership. tn
IN weakness Of the proposed settlemer
J., Hes In the, fact that II doesn't nam
m q price, and leaves the value TO /
fixed by the circuit judges. WI,
~ all respect to the circuit judge
T. what do they know about the Walt
. Of street railway"
'e What do they know about n
facts Of most OF the cases whlC
ID they handler" he was asked.
II AT least. they know the law" r
y piled Judge Murfn.
The administration now favors N
submission OF the street railws
- purchase plan to the voters In n
T. vember instead of September. TT
y September election was tentativel
% planned by the railway commissio
. before the final agreement betwee
the city and the company on tn
u. - A.. 4 4. -. -. . . ~, ~