Year: 1873

Its officers a summary order for compliance
with their instructions to the very letter. ,
No such petition was ever preferred. Would !,
1t be considered the duty of the Court of
Chancery, no word of complaint having been |
heard from any party to the cause, tc 60 and
examine the files and records in the Office Of
it's clerk, and on discovering the absence of
these accounts to spout up authority as an
artesian we'll might spout water, and summon
Its officers to answer for this delinquency
which the parties to be injured thereby might,
and as matter of duty, should have dis
covered and complained Of, if reason for COM
plant they saw? just about as reasonable
would have been an overhauling of the advi-
sorry committee for neglecting to compel the
filing OF these accounts.


After this long reign of peace and quiet
ness, hostilities were again opened in the
court on the 9th of December last by the
Vermont and Canada Railroad Company,


which, through its President, filed on that
day petition setting forth in substance that


their rent was six days overdue and unpaid
although the receivers and managers had in


their possession sufficient funds for its pay


ment, or would have had if the same had not


been improperly expended, and praying for
summary order for payment of the rent
with interest from the time of its becoming


due. During the tendency of that petition
two others were filed; one by the Canada
company and the other by certain bondhold-
ers, both praying for the removal of the re-
celvers and managers on account of alleged
| frauds and peculations, misnanagement and


misappropriation Of the funds and property


OF the trust. After some delays, BY request


of parties, these three petitions came on for


hearing, all together, on the 18th day of


March, 1873, before Chancellors Royce and


Redfeld, at the court house in St. Albans.


An answer to the petition of the Canada


company for their rent was filed by the re-


celvers. denying that they had money in


their possession, and applicable to that pur-


pose, sufficient to pay the rent prayed for, or


any part thereof, or that they had improperly


expended any OF the funds of the trust. Thus


the issue was made up and the whole matter


resolved into question of fwhat moneys had


come into the hands of the receivers, and


what, if anything, had been done with them;


which question could only be received through


an accounting between the receivers and the


trust estate. That accounting the court


promptly and in our humble judgment right
| ly, refused to sit as a court and take, and so


the case ran aground almost at the very mo-
ment OF Its clumsy Launching.


1t is unnecessary for US to attempt the


support of a ruling so manifestly proper that


to tyro in the science of equity and jurls-


prudence, its propriety IS self-evident.


Courts of equity never take accounts save in


the form of masters reports, and that this is


a wise and necessary rule caun OF for a mo-


ment be doubted. The Court in this case


said to its petitioners: &" We cannot in equity


require our officers to pay over to you money


when they say they have none, and there is
but one way to decide whether they have or


not, but although you do not in terms ask it,
we will. if you desire, order these receivers
and managers to file their accounts. If they
have money it will then appear and you can


demand its application to the payment of
your claim. Ii they have had the money


but have improperly expended it, you have


the undoubted right to object to the items Of


improper expenditure, be they few or many.
and the Court will adjudicate them according


to it's course" And the Vermont and Cana


da Railroad Company, by its President, re-
piled: " We don't wanItheir accounts; we


want our rent, and since we are refused that,


we will take nothing, but will withdraw our
petition


The Vermont aud Canada Railroad Com
panE and certain of the mortgage bondholders


had filed their several petitions for the re-
moval OF the receivers and managers, or some


of them, Tor the reason, and tor no other


reason substantially, than that they had mis-
! appropriated the funds and property of the
trust.


: Then it was again simple matter OF ac-
counting between the receivers and their trust
Again was the attempt made to introduce
: this accounting in form of evidence before
the Chancellors. and as before, it was prompt.
ly ruled out. One OF the counsel for the
bondholders then moved the Court to appoin int
2 master to take the accounts of the receivers
To this the Court replied: q" Our course ii


clearly marked out for US by the decree OF
1864. We will not appoint master to the
endless and useless task of taking all [ &c
, counts of these receivers, but il you desire il
4 we will order them to file their accounts il
J this court in the course prescribed by tina
o de ;ree, and any items, or the absence of any
:, items therein to which you may object, shall
be sent to a master to investigate and repor
d to this court for the adjudication thereof"
: Upon the announcement of this corrup
n and oppressive decision the petitioners ex
q pressed in a gentemany manner their dis
y gust and the utter contempt in which they
IL held the court. Indignantly withdrew al
e their petitions and shaking the dust frou
e their feet, went out. The reason of tbi
!. persistent refusal of the petitioners to pros
IT cute their cause in the manner SO clearl,
l. marked out by the decree which they regar,
'r as pre-eminently valid and binding, is
C mystery which, as it is entirely out Of ou
Is province, we shall make no attempt to solve
The fact that while by inuendoes and aside
q they claim the illegality and nsufhciency O
rt their representation in the granting of torme
L. nd h1to futl rof1.a FrnY
he taking steps to bring the matter-a YER
r simple one to all appearance-to direct issue
I, is equally dark and inexplicabIe.


Is The next important move in this cause wa
" the application of the receivers aud man
4 ayers for permission to turn over the proper
I. ty under their charge as such to a new re
1T ceiver, namely the Central Vermont Railroa
'e Company, and because of the granting
re this request the Court of Chancery has bee
70 most fercely attacked by certain of th
u, newspapers of this country, and some of tf
e. astute wielders of that i'm plement of warfar
OF which is So mightier than the sword" hav
OF managed by course of reasoning more pre-
y found than either sensible or logical to dra
IN in and vilify the whole Supreme bench G


this State. Let US look at the matter for
gs moment, merely suggesting in the outset tina
OF although the practice in other States ma
q, be, AMI in many instances doubtless is, d
is ferent, it has always been looked upon her
ed as proper for courts to render their decision
'e upon the evidence and arguments brougt
7n before them in their judicial capacity only
te Objections were made to this change
Il Management by the Vermont and Canad
ill Railroad Company and by certain bono


holders, substantially upon the followin
as grounds:


r Frst-That the Central Vermont Railroa
Company was not party to this suit. an
ne that it was improper for the outgoing recei,