Chicago & S.E. Ry. Co. v. McBeth

• Decision Date: 23 September 1897
• Citation: 47 N.E. 678,149 Ind. 78
• Parties: CHICAGO & S. E. RY. CO. v. McBETH et al.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

149 Ind. 78

47 N.E. 678

CHICAGO & S. E. RY. CO.

v.McBETH et al.¹

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Sept. 23, 1897.

Appeal from circuit court, Clay county; S. M. McGregor, Judge.

Bill by Robert McBeth and others against the Chicago & Southeastern Railway Company. From an interlocutory order appointing a receiver, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Henry Crawford, W. R. Crawford, and Gaim, Coffin & Davis, for appellant. Silas D. Coffey, Albert Payne, E. S. Holliday, and Rawley & Hutchinson, for appellees.

HACKNEY, J.

The appellees (more than 100 in number) sued the appellant, alleging that they held, severally, judgments, liens, and claims against the appellant and its railway property; that appellant had executed mortgages to almost the entire value of its property; that it was applying the earnings of the road to official salaries, and was making no payments upon said judgments, which judgments had been rendered more than four years; and that said company was insolvent. It was alleged that the road extended, as an entirety, through several counties, and was operated as a public railway. The prayer sought an adjustment of the priorities of the several judgments, and an ascertainment of the sums severally due the appellees, and the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the railway, with its operating property, apply its revenues to the claims alleged, and to sell the property for the payment of any balances remaining. The complaint and the following order entered in vacation constitute the only parts of the record brought to this court, to wit: “And now come the parties hereto, the plaintiffs by Messrs. A. W. Knight and others, their attorneys, and the defendant by Messrs. Matson & Luther and Mr. Stover, its attorneys; and the plaintiffs submitted their verified complaint and affidavits, together with the summons, and notice of application for a receiver herein, in the words and figures following (here insert); and now the said defendant moves the undersigned judge for a postponement of the hearing of the application for a receiver, which said motion is by the said judge sustained, and said application is set for hearing at 7 o'clock p. m. of this day. And now at the hour set for the hearing of said application come again the parties, by their attorneys aforesaid. Defendant again moves for a postponement of this cause, and files affidavits in support (here insert) thereof, which motion is overruled, to which defendant excepts, and ten...