Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co. v. Central Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 17 November 1884
• Citation: 22 F. 272
• Parties: WABASH, ST. L. & P. RY. CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

22 F. 272

WABASH, ST. L. & P. RY. CO. v. CENTRAL TRUST CO. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri.

November 17, 1884

H. D Kent, Wager Swayne, and John F. Dillon, for complainant.

Butler Stillman & Hubbard and Phillips & Stewart, for complainant in cross-bill.

TREAT J., (orally.)

The circuit judge, when this matter was before him on the original bill, appointed Messrs. Humphreys and Tutt receivers. As such receivers they were to protect not only the property itself, but the interests of all the parties connected with this estate. They are just as much the receivers of the parties to this cross-bill as they are the receivers of every other person in interest. True, the proceeding is peculiar in this aspect: that the application was made by the corporation itself, instead of being made by the mortgagee on default of payment of interest. As I have said heretofore, it does not follow as a matter of course because there is a default in interest, that a mortgagee has a right to the appointment of a receiver. There must be other considerations. But it is apparent in the case now before the court that if this bill had not been filed before default in interest, and facts which appear of record here had appeared upon the application of the mortgagee, a receiver would have been appointed under the mortgage. This application, however, is before the court in this aspect: there are receivers who have been appointed by the circuit judge who are bound to care for the interests of all concerned,-- of this defendant who files his cross-bill, as well as every one else.

It appears from the proceedings, so far as they have progressed that this enterprise is of that scope and extent that disintegration in this intermediate condition would be just as destructive to the interests of the party applicant now asking for separate receivers as to all other parties involved in the enterprise. To grant this application at this stage would be not only to destroy his interests, but the interest of all other, or many other, parties to this suit. What, then, shall the court do? If this party is to have separate receivers, of course, they could only be receivers to the extent of those interests in the property covered by his specific mortgage. The court knows from what has occurred in the case that the result would be to cut him off from terminal facilities at the most important points out of which income is to be derived. Hence, the receivers, if appointed under his bill, leaving the receivers already appointed by the circuit judge with the residue of the property, would require negotiations between them whereby the receivers under this cross-bill might have an opportunity to get into the large cities in the conduct of their business. Now, that certainly would be very disastrous to the applicant, and very ruinous to the property. I know no reason why, if the court grants this application, divisional mortgagees might not also have receivers appointed...