Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1921-11-07
HOLMES JONES vs..
MAXWELL MOTORS
Chancellor Delivers an interest
lng Opinion and Csniss Mo-
ton iof a Decree.

w opinion ana Oon'ss MO-
ton tot a Decree.
Chancellor iusssh a. Wulvolt has
o.lls osvd an lnte,y~siuR erlnlnn ln the
eAss IT ltulme@ jones' against the MaS.
we'll Musm 60 and acni.d the come
nlanants moiisn fof a d.cree. Mr,
jones asked for the appointment ot a
ss~els.r. aud the csusc was heard on
bill, amendments thereto. answer AMI
supplemental answer. under rule a VI
the court of shanccrN, for a decree
Notwithstanding answer. Following IN
an t~traes of the chanccllor's opinion;
The complainant as Stockholder
OF the defendant. nlcd his hill IN this
cause on December A., 1870. praying
that a receiver he appointed for the
defendant. The prayer for n receiver
VAS not predlcatcd ON an avcrment of
Insolvency, Indeed the original bin
VAS constructed ON the theory that
the defendant was solvent but fraud
and mismanagement was charged on
the part Of the officers.
After the Ming OF the original bill.
i. to wit. about January "a, 1921, three
fcndant In the District Courts OF the
United States for the Eastern Dis
triet OF Michigan. southern Division.
for the District of Indiana and for the
Southern District of ohio. Western
Division. seeking the appointment OF
receivers ON the ground of insolvency.
About April :. 1921. receiver Of
the defendant was appointed by each
OF said courts ,the same individual
being appointed by each court), and a
sale was ordered by said courts OF all
the property Of the defendant. Ry the
orders of said courts the defendant
was required 20 assign and convey all
OF tts property and assets wherever
situate and OF whatsoever kind unto
The. receiver. sale of the same was
dscrced 90 be made and creditors di-
revted to tle their claims. Thereupon
the defendant company made the as
signment and conveyance Of all its
property and assets 10 the receiver
s~ required.
White the original hill in this cause
did net ailege insolvency. yet. after the
actions IN the West. the complainant
obtalned leave to amend and did on
Apsil "a, 1874, amend his hlll. alleging
for the first time insolvency.
while the answer does not express.
~ admit Insolvency, yet as conceded
~ the solicitor for the defendant. Il
may he fairly said that insolvency j.
a. substance admitted Al an events
such - assumed io hc the cause for the
purpose ~ dlrposing 81 the present
moiiun
"a anprars frum ~, answer that
che dufenaani has ne pruperiy of ans
Kind IA TIE state ~ Delaware. that an
l's rtupegtN was located in the iuris.
siiesinns - ihc three United states
Courts ahaNe mentioned. that this
trurefiN was nf very considerable
value and that tho fccpiNvrshlp and
sale in tht Fsavfai courts az Michigan
ohio and Indiana we're not only iuSu.
rsi hs ~, insnlsrnt condition ~ the
eoinl@ns. but wefe approved ~ a rc.
pfAanlseiinn committee fsrrer.niinr
large mainfi', ef creditors and of each
class ~ rsnekhuldsr. ~ the defendant
u apiisafa alan that hil The debts uf
ihs defendant we're Aue and paVnhie
al enc 81 ihe other oi ihp three said
districts where eil uf ~ property whs
nnd whtre me receiver was appoint
81
Hwhrn 4 motion for decree not.
Nithsihndns answer is made under
tUlt - the facts 80 fofih ln me ans.
Vet shall ~ faNen to be true fof the
pufr0~s ~ such motion nnly
lse,auss pi she fulr. the court must
icph o. the answer for the facts on
"A A..
Hfeffed Va tho hlil and noi denied or
pai ~ issue h9 ihs answer and an
festf set up In the answer. whether
ultimately found 20 be- tfue or false.
constitute the case for present con.
s'asfaiiar under ne rule,
r. thefefofe. assume for the pur.
posses II this molten tbs utmost of the
renpialnahts contention. viri that
the defendant - corporation not Cor
public Improvement that ths com.
tiainant IL IA ~toekholdef thufeof. tha,
me defendant ls lnsolyent. and that
th' prayers are % framed that a
statutory fveei,sf MAY " ln iha chan.
FsiliaH discretion d h des'uod proper
snnf be appointed Thsss assump.
tlons ! fspeat arc ~ tho purposos oi
the rfeseni motion onlf.
fhs ~sis question with which ~,
eoufi wiw concerns Itself il whether
uhdef ths ihrfs now appearing. fhs
courts ussrfttiOn ought to d. e2er.
elsea lH fafef ~ the appointment %
receiver
y is "a ,~ noted ihut ths statute
auss nei require in absolute terms
VA ihf chancellor shall ln every cas-,
where me jufl~iiaiional facts are msas
cot hrlH'ini feceifef Tho lurgags
iH thai hs may nt any time. ln his