dered yesterday. Counsel for the receivers stated that they had not had an opportunity to examine the order carefully j but, from the casual examination which they had given it, they hail discovered some parts of the order were objectionable, and not in accordance with the finding of the court on yesterday. Treat, J. You will understand that we direct our receivers to allow . these tracks to be laid upon the party giving bond to answer to any damages that may accrue to the receivers or their successors, and there we stop. We have nothing more to say. We hope to get rid of this property at an early day, and then the purchasers may litigate these matters wherever they please. We are not going to charge a perpetuity or burden upon this property while it is in our possession temporarily. Mr. - - . But while it is in the possession of the court it will permit these crossings to be made? Treat,.J. Yes. Mr. Priest. I understood this question to be addressed to Judge' BREWER, on the supposition that the Wabash Railway Company for itself might undertake to prevent the location of these tracks, so far as its interests were concerned,-that is, a remainder interest, not a present possession or interest, but whatever future interest it may have, -that the courts would be open to it for the protection of those interests in any mannerit might deem advisable. Treat, J. The simple proposition was this. Perhaps you did not catch the remarks of Brother BREWER in their entirety, and I did not wish to supplement them, except on one or two points, that the finding might be understood. Here is a property, as far as the court is at present advised, by which you have spurs, so to speak, running down to the river in every direction. Here is a rival road, if you choose, that cannot accomplish its ends without crossing your various spurs. Now your various spurs depend upon different titles. For some you have a license from the city. If we take up for adjudication each one of these crossings, with separate interests, there might be very important separate inquiries. In regard to the depot, you have the question of "damages," as well as the condemnation of the absolute right of property elsewhere. There are many grave questions involved, but this court did not choose to pass upon those at all, for the reason that this property is in the hands of the receivers of this. court temporarily. What shall be done with the property while in the hands of the receivers is one question, and the court would not undertake to adjudicate, through the process of condemnation, or otherwise, the ultimate determination of questions connected with this vast property. It is no part of the business of this court, when this property is in the hands of the receivers, to adjudicate such questions at all. We cannot go back and create any rights or liens on this property that shall pass, not only as against the present owners of the property, but against all purchasers hereafter, or cstab-
CENTRAL TRUST CO. 'D. WABASH, ST. L. & P. RY. CO.
lish new liens or demands. The point I insisted upon in conference with my Brother BREWER was that we could not do that. We simply preserve the property for t4e interests of all concerned. He'l'e was a novel question presented,-novel in this one sense, viz., that this property was in the hands of a receiver; there is another pnblic enterprise; and if we did not permit the receivers to assent thereto, another great enterprise would be obstructed. You are all here under a franchise from a common government, which looks to the public good. That is the underlying thought. Now, we say we will allow our receivers to permit the crossings, etc., without charging any permanent servitude on the property at all. We will do nothing but grant what might be called "a license." That hi all these ;parties are going to acquire, so far as this court is concerned, during the pendency of the receivership. We will permit this,to be done on the giving of a bond to respond to any damages of. par-ties in interest. We don't decide ultimate questions at all; Thatinaybe done hereafter. If this road goes to a foreclosure and sale,parties may do whatever they choose,-we don't propose to pass on thoseques.: tions, and intended to eliminate them entirely. . Mr. Priest. That, I understand, is in regard to the possessory interests of the receivers, so far as' they are concerned, and I only look to their interests in this matter. Treat, J. They are the officers of the court, and we direct them to do this on receiving this bond. That is all. If there are questions be.. hind that, which go to the ultimate determination of titles, etc., this court is not going to pass upon them at present. Let the proper tribunal pass upon them when they arise. We do not determine what that proper tribunal is. We merely say we will not do it now. Mr. Priest. I am glad to have the expression of the court upon this point. It is suggest.tld that the receivers may, possibly, during the continuance of their possession, suffer damages by reason of the crossing at this depot. Treat, J. Well, they will have to be paid. 'rhe bond that we tain for damages, if there are any, is for that purpose. Mr. Priest. How are we to ascertain those damages? Treat, J. That will go to the master at the proper time. Mr. Priest. By petition filed? Treat, J. Oh, no. It is a part of the pending matter. There is no need of going though it again. Mr. Priest. We wish to be careful, so that the jurisdiction may be preserved against the parties to respond to any action which the receivers may present, by way of a bill, against them, before the master, for such damages as they may sustain. Treat, J. Judge BREWER said yesterday,-perhaps you did not catch it,-" Reserving all further questions in regard to any damages that may be sustained in the pending matter." There is no need of bringing a new action at all. We retain the case as presented, on the
application of Mr. Finkelnburg. You ask certain things. You have failed to agree. It has been before the master. It comes back on exceptions. Pro forma we overrule those exceptions, and make an order of onr own that, instead of paying so much money, etc., you give a bond in the form prescribed; and the application is reserved for the further consideration of the court under the bond, and it does not require any new proceeding at all. Mr. Priest. I understand it now. I did not understand Judge BREWER. The draft of the order, as submitted to me, does not contemplate that interlocutory decree, but is a final determination of the matter. Treat, J. There is no final determination. Mr. Kent. That is exactly wbat we want reserved. Treat, J. That was reserved. The exceptions were filed to the master's report. They were overruled pro forma. That is a very expressive phrase, indicating that we do not pass on the merits of any· thing underlying it, but in the light of what was sll,id, and in the light of that report, we chose to make a new and independent order, not following the master in the report at all. We give a new and independent order that, instead of your paying $25,000, you shall give a bond, which was entirely ontside the master's report. It seems to me the decree can be written in this matter very concisely, and accomplish all that is desired, to.wit: "This matter having come on to be heard," etc., "the court orders, adjudges, and decrees as follows,"that is all. Then say that we overrule pro forma the exceptions to the master's report; and thereupon the court orders, adjudges, and decrees as follows, to-wit: That the receivers permit the crossings to be made of the property now in their custody under the orders of this court, on the giving of a bond in the sum of $50,000 to respond to any damages that may accrl1e to the receivers or their successors in interest, to be hereafter determined, and said crossings to be conducted as yon have agreed on, reserving all questions under the said bond as to any damages that may accrue during the pendency of the reo ceivership.
CENTRAL TRUST CO. V. WABASH) ST. L. &: P. RY. CO.
CENTRAL TRUST CO. and another v. WABASH, ST. L. & P. By. Co. and others. 1
«(Mcuit Court, E. D. Missouri. January 5, 1886.)
RECEIVERS-TAXEs-REv. ST. Mo. § 6754. The fact that the propert:y of a corporation is in the hands of a receiver of this court does not exempt It from seizure and sale bl the collector of taxes, under section 6754 of the Revised Statutes of MiSSOUrI.
In Equity. county.
Information against the county collector of Chariton
Wells H. Blodgett, for receivers. BREWER, J., (orally.) An application was made to me yesterday to issue an attachment against the collector of taxes in one of the counties of this state, who had issued his warrant and levied on an engine belonging to the Wabash road, and now in the possession of the receivers. It is not represented in the petition that the taxes are not just and legal, or that they are not due. The statutes of Missouri make it the duty of the collector, if the taxes are not paid, to issue his warrant and seize property, and sell the same as upon execution. It is suggested that there is no danger of this property being placed beyond the jurisdiction of the county, and no doubt but that the taxes will be paid in a few days, and it is intimated that perhaps the collector is proceeding summarily in thjs way for the mere sake of obtaining the fees which the statute authorizes him to charge whenever he makes a levy. Be that as it may, I think that in levying and collecting taxes the state is exercising its sovereign power, and that there should be no interference with its collection of those taxes in its prescribed and regular methods, even by a court having property in the posRession of its receivers, unless it is first charged that the taxes are in some way illegal or excessive. The mere fact that the receivers have no money on hand to pay the taxes is no excuse for stopping the process of the state for their collection. It may be hard for the road to pay these taxes, but it can be no harder for a corporation in the hands of receivers to pay taxes than it is for an individual, and the remedy of the state is in each case the same. The application for attachment will be denied.
by Beni. F. Rex, Esq., 01 the St. Louis bar.