separate consideration. This guaranty appears from all these considerations to have haena mere simple contract with Barlow collateral to the bonds; whose character was apparent'upon its face, and whi ch could not be enlarged or made more indefensible in the hands of subsequent holders, with or without further and whether for value or otherwise. 7TustCo. v.Bank; 101 U. 68.; ,The Vermont National Bank acquired all the rights that Barlow had to the bonds and coupons, with the guarantyon the bonds, including the right to enforce the guaranty in his name so far, a:nd 'sO far only, he could enforoe it for any purpose. The plaintiff took ihe same rights,anu' does not now appear to have in any manner acquired any greater. No vip-wof these instruments is presented, or presents itself, upon which the plaintifl'appears to be entitled to recover in this case. The judgment here must therefore be for the defendant.
OENTRALTRusT,' . 'oFN:il:w! r . eo. ,'
YORK: fl. " :', '
LOUIS, A. &; " ,'.,'
T.Ry. · .. '
RBCJlrVuBlI...:AOTIoXB AGAINST':"'SE'BVnlJlOP 1'J:r,OOESS.
AotCong. MatQh 8; 1887, M:2,8, SI;. 554,) provide that receivers in pO&session of property shall it accOrding to the laws of the statewherEllt is situated, and maybe sued'wlthouUeave of the 'court by whom they were appointed. 'J,u Arkansas l!8fv1ce of prOMIJ8 o,n;the or stationageut of a raUroQll company is good ,serviqe on the company. that, wbere' receivers of a railroad running through ArkaIisas, who welle appointed in tbat stllot(l, bad removed Into another to be in the state courts of Arkansas by sernce .on tJ;leir station agents or clerke therem. , ' '.'., .,,'
Equity. Application to establish validity of service in suits against ), , ; ,receiV'el's.' ,'Thedefendant company owij.and operated a railroad, beginning in .Missouri, and running across. the of Arkail'sas into Texas. On a 'bill for foreclosure,filedby theitrusteesof the mortgage bondholders in Jthe 'eastern district or'Missouri, Il. receiver was appointed, and upon a 'llke bill filed in this district the same person was appointed receiver in 'this.district, 'lilid afterwards a secohd receiver was appointed 'to act jointly with the' first:. 'The repeivers their office in St. Upuis, Mo· . to !h,e Arkansas'that 'persons having claims receivers which they refused to allow were prevented from es:t;ablishing justice of their claims by suit in. the ,s'tate courts', because 'personal service of the stubmons cbuld notbeb'ad ori the receivers, and the validity()f' on tlieihtatlon agents was disputed." '"
! ; ·
' ; '
, as abcve.) Airecerit con' ".. ..,. .' . gt'essconfuipll WeseprOvistonll:' ' . , any .cause iq' ahy court of the United 'States,there tie a'receiver or manager in possession of' any property, 'such recelver'Of"tilal1aget'&hilll mBnageand propertyaceording
CENTRAL TRUST COYE>F' NEW YORK tl. ST.'oomS, A. & T. RY. CO.
to thl;l" requiremenf;s oJ; valid laws afthe state 1n,whicll $ueh property shall be situated, in the same manner the owner or possessor thereof would be bOund to. do if in possegsion thereof. Any receiver or manager who shall, fully violate the provisions of this section shall. be, deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall; on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $3,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both ments, in the discretion of the court. "Sec. 3. That every receiver or manager of any property appointed by any court of the UnitE'd States may be sued in respect of any act or transaction of his in carrying on the business connected with such property, without the preVious leave of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed; bUl such suit shall be SUbject to the general equity jurisdiction of the court in which such receiver or manager was appointed, so far as the same shall 'be necessary to the ends of justice." . Sections 2, 3, Act March 3, 1887, (24 U. 8. 8t. 554.) . . These sections were in act of August 13, 1888, (25 U. S. St. 436.) ''.rhis act was intended to correct abuses that had grown up unde1'the old practice, some of which were pointed out before the pas-sage of the act, in the opinion of this court in Dcno v. Railroad 00., 20 Fed. 'Rep. 267. The act abrogates the old rule dn the subject of suing receivers. It is no longer unlawful to sue a receiver appointed by Ii United States; court leave of the court appointing the receiver. The court now has no discretion to say when its receiver may be sued. Theaqt the right, without condition or qualification. It is a right not to be .nullified , evaded, or abridged. No conditions can be imposed on its exercise. , The court must give effect to. the act. It has no discretion to do anything else. "Rights under our system of law and procedure do not vest in the discretionary authority of any officer, judicial or otherwise." Ex parte Pm"ker, 131 U. 221,9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 708. The road the receivers' are operating under the authority of this court runs clear acmas the state, a distance of 300, miles; but the receivers have established their office in St. Louis, Mo., where they remain, and when sued ca,nnot be found and personally served with process in this state. The right to sue the receivers necessarily carries with it the right to serve the requirE-d process to make the suit effectual. This is implied in the act. What is implied in an act is as much a part of it as what is, expressed·· Process need not be served on the railroad receivers personally. It would be impracticable to do so in many cases.. It isimpracticable in this case. 'fhe receivers, like the railroad company, can operate the road only through their agents, who must always be within the jurisdiction of the courts of the state in which the road is operated. For a court to permit its receivers to remain beyond the jurisdiction·of the state courts, and refuse to give efied to service on their agents in the state, would efl'ectuallypreclude the citizen from suing them in the state courUa, and would be a complete nullification of the act of congress. It has long been the rule in this district that receivers of railroads ap" pointed'bythis court might be sued without the special leave of the court, and that service of the summons on his station agents should be good service orl'the receiver. This practice is now in harmony with the act of congress .and the statutes of this state.. In this state service on the
"clerk or agent of any stati6n" of·i. railroad company is good service on the company. The receivers take the place of the l'ailroad company in the operation of the road.. .ThEj act of congress requires them to operate the road comformably to the laws of the state, and as. the railroad company was bound to operate it. The station agents become the receivers' agents, and service on them ought to be good service on the receivers; and under the net of congress and the statutes of this state, it probably is; but to remove any doubt the court will pass the following order: "The Oentral Tru8t Company. New York. vs. The St. Arkansas " Te:r;a8 Railway Oompany, in Arkansas and Mi8so'/!.ri. the court .that S. W. Fordyce and A. H. Swanson, the receivers in thi& cause, have established their office, and have their official domicile as such receivers, in St. Louis. Mo.· and that they cannot be personally issued against .them by the courts in this state, because they are found in the state, it is therefore ordered that the service of 8 copy ofaBysummons or writ, heretofore or hereafterIssued against said receiv,ers'in this state, upon the clerk or station agent of said receivers at any station or depot. of said railroad in the county where the same was or lDay be and;considered as a good and valid service of such sumplons or,writ on saidrece.i,vers. Of 'fhe recaivers are instructed, 'and desire, to settle all valid claims against them· without suit· ·r Ii; is proper to add that, When the receivers or their agents have settledand allowed a claim, it will be paid in due administration, and a suit and judgment on such not hasten its payment.
M; &T. R. Co. v.
(OircwUOourt, E.D. LO'ltIIriana. November i6,l889.)
Under Aot La. 1882. No. 96, § 8. reqlrlHngeach tax assessor to ascertain the taxable property in his district. both byexalDination of the records of conveyances and by inquirieS. etc., an assessmept in the.name of former owners, whose title has been divested'by bankru'ptcy sale, and who are not in possession. and an adjudicatioJl of , the ,to the state for non-payment of the taxes, are void.
,,' Xn· Equity. ,On motion for injunction. ' , &: Denegre,for complainant. J., B. BecT.:with" for defendant.
PAnDEll:, J ·.. 0n July ,31, 1866, the city of New Orleans, by proper act, sold and conveyed to Messrs. Kennedy & McKeon, a commercial fifID tioing business and residingrin ,the city of New Orleans,two'certain batture Jotsinithe square' No. 17 A, bounded by Notre Dame, Julia, J,Jelta, and Water ,streets. January 3, 1868, Charles McKeon individu': ally, and as a member of firm of Kennedy & McKeon, Siurenderin bankruptcy, and on the 4th day.of January, 1868,