Street v. Maryland Cent. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1893
• Citation: 58 F. 47
• Parties: STREET v. MARYLAND CENT. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

58 F. 47

STREET v. MARYLAND CENT. RY. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Maryland.

September 25, 1893

Stephenson A. Williams, for complainant.

John P Poe, R. R. Boarman, N. P. Bond, D. G. McIntosh, and R. M Venable, for respondents.

Before BOND, Circuit Judge, and MORRIS, District Judge.

BOND Circuit Judge.

The motion before us is the application of the Baltimore & Lehigh Railroad Company and John Henry Miller and Moses H. Houseman for the removal of William H. Bosley from the receivership of the Baltimore & Lehigh Railroad Company and the Baltimore Forwarding & Railroad Company, to which position he was appointed in this case by the circuit court for Hartford county on 17th May, 1893. The grounds for removal of this receiver stated in the petition of Miller, Gilmor, and Houseman are (1) that Bosley was improperly appointed; (2) that his appointment was the result of an unlawful conspiracy between the complainant, Street, Crumpton, and Kennefeck; (3) that he has appointed Crumpton general manager of the railroad, although aware that Crumpton is incompetent; (4 and 5) that he desires to promote certain railroad schemes not in the interest of the Baltimore & Lehigh Railroad Company, and has unfairly reported the condition of its property; (6) that he has not sufficient experience to enable him to conduct and manage the property.

The petition of the Baltimore & Lehigh Railroad Company states substantially the same reasons, and also asks for Bosley's removal upon the additional ground that as the court of common pleas for York county, Pa., has appointed a different person, Mr Taylor, as receiver to operate that portion of the railroad which is in Pennsylvania, the evils of a divided management and the want of co-operation is disastrous in its results.

Petitions have also been filed by holders of the first and of the general mortgage bonds of the Maryland Central Railway, by holders of the bonds of the York & Peach Bottom Railroad Company, all uniting in asking that the whole railroad may be brought under the control of one receiver.

The considering the matters brought before us by these petitions it is but right to say that, however the appoinemtn of Mr. Bosley may have been brought about, there is no testimony which leads us to believe that he was a party to any combination of persons in any alleged scheme to force the railroad into liquidation for ulterior ends. He does not appear to have done more than agree to accept the receivership, if appointed. He does not appear to have had any previous connection with the property or with the parties. As to his performance of the duties of the receivership during the four months since his appointment, he appears to have acted with energy, ability, and good judgment. He has had previous experience in like positions, and has the confidence which experience gives in meeting the difficulties in running a railroad insufficiently equipped, in need of repairs, embarrassed by litigation, and pressed by creditors. Nothing has been made to appear against him showing...