PARKER V. KEW ORLEANS, B. R. &, V. R.
CO.
698
such separable controversy is presented as to authorize a removal of the action on· the. ground of, the diverility of citizenship, some of the plaintiffs being residents lilf the same state as the defendant.
On Petition to Remand. Action by Samuel Reineman and others against Michael Ball and others to set aside a general assignment. Pranklin Bien, for plaintiffs. , Baker & Schwartz, for defendants. LACOMBE, J. This action,:was begun in the state court on April 27, 1886, by four of the plaintiffs against the defendants, all parties being citizens and residents of New York. Subsequently, the summons and by bringing in two additional plaintiffs, citizens and residentsofMasSllchusetts.These latter thereupon removed the caUse into here the copy of the record required by the removal act. Defendants have, therefore, themselves entered the record, and now move to remand, in accordance with the rules and practice of this circuit. Ander80n v. Appleton, 32 Fed. Rep. 855. The actioncisbroughtto set aside, as fraudulent, a general assignment maa.e by tiM' defendants,Ball & Levy, to Julius Altman. Each of the plaintiffs is a separate judgment creditor of the defendants, Ball 1& Levy. Executions have been issued on their several judgments, and returned unsatisfied.' No issue is raised as 'to these judgments, the defendants. only controverting such facts as. tend to show tliat the assignment. was fraudulent or invalid, or that the preferences it contains are fictitious; and the only controversy involved in the case is the questiouwhether that assignment was fraudulent. This is not a separable controversy, within the later decisions. See Ander80n v. Appleton, 32 Fed. Rep. 855, and cases there cited. Inasmuch, therefore, as citizens of this state are found ouhoth sides of that controversy, the cause must be remanded.
PARKER- V. NEW ORLEANS,
.
B. R. & V. R.Co. et. al., Intervenor.)
(HAMLIN,
((Jircuit Oourt, W:.D. Louiaiana.
January Term. 1888.) PRoPERTY.
1.
RAILROAD
In equity, future property may be mortgaged. A railway company, under the laws of Louisiana, when authorized to borrow money forcoDstruction. pur.. poses, may mortgage such property as it may acquire in the future, and aa Boon as the property is acquired the mortgage operates on it. . .
;ObViO.UillY,. i.t. W'o.uldbe di.mcult if n.ot impracticable., for· a railway company to specitic;slly .des()ribe future property that it might acquire. When Buch property IsmortgaKed. the, mortgage attaches to property Bubseq uently acquired as if' it' had been described specifically in the act; it is entitled to th" same effect in law as if it lu1.d beeD a judicial mortgage.
694
FEDERAL' REPORTER;·
8. PUBLW··LANDS--RAILROAD GRAN'l18-"OOND.!'l'JONS. " . , Whelle lands have been grantetNn 'P7'aBenti to a rau.way company to aid its construction, and congress afterWards allows the grantee to assign the lands to another compan;" the government, but not the latter company, might have questioned the tItle on the ground that the grantee .bas failed to perform the iJ;nposed in th.e When a want of in Pf'0!8enti is made toa ra'l}way,company, ·and· a map d$slgnatmg the' route IS filed In the proper office, title to the lands, previ()usJy. bI!perfect,acquires precision, and attaches to the lands. 4. RAILROAD COMPANIES-MORTGAGES-REINSCRIPTION. li.SAME-)IORTGAGE-RAILR()AD GRAN'j.'.
..
. ifendan&comt>any and 8ssigned:toN.O. P. Ry.Co., The N. O. P. Ry. Co. took thelandsin question witl1,8uch Hens in law and equity as the grantee .had imposed on them. in favor of the bona fide holClers of the bonds sued on, and with 'fuU'knowledge of aUihfifacts. The court in this case will not go into the qUestiOD as to whilther, one or or neither of the parties earned th.e hmd.grant. or inquire out of whose money or earnings the N. O. P; Ry. was bujlt. The equitable rights of complaina.nts ca.nnot be affected by the resultofilnch an inquiry;' " ,. <St/llabu8 bg Ute 'Court.}
. .. The lan'goage used in this 'mortgage act embraces the lands granted to de·
,4. Goldthwait, ,A. H. LeO'1¥J(1'd" .Howe Prrntias and Dillon « Jl.
In
. Bill for the
o{arailroad mortgage. . .Rou8e & Grant, for defendants.
a of'IP.inois, ,of9.J!l.e $1,000, WIth - - - mterest ..... coupons,aHl.\ched, flues for ll,II).oup,tqf oye,r·due cQupons, for foreclosure, and for gerieralrelief. W. A. .l;Iimlin .holds five ,of' the same kind of J.oin.s in the and. asks 11,ef. Th El Lnllls: brought Orleans, Rouge & Vl()kl'l" b]lrgRpilr..<:>p,t1 Cpmpany, domicjJe.d.8it N.ew Orleans, Louisianaj S.,D.. McJrust Company of New York,; J. F'. Dillon and Henry Alexander', of New York; and the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, of Louisiana. The defendant company the Union Trust Company and S.· D. McEnery made no appearance, and judgment pro confesso was entered against them. The New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, J. Ii". Dillon, and Alexander answered. In their answel'sare:set,tip (I) That future not be mortgaged under the law.§of L0uislnna; (2) that the future property I claimed to have been included in the mortgage act, was not so described as td·hoti(ythird personsj'(3) that the lands granted by congress by act March 3, 1871, never veste:IUn the defendantcomp!tnyj, (4) that, the was reinscribedj(i)) 'that th& lands. grantedbyoongressto :defendant company were, not embraced in the . ',.', , ' , . . ....' : Before these ilefenses; and the issues made by the pleadings, let Us recite,.,auoiltantiaUy,sul'hof ,the, evidence as, is necessary to'be considered ihthis'Case. By I1D'aCt'oHhti Louisiana legislature of December 3,l"A. body corporate, under tl:ie name of the New Orleans, Baton Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad Com-
PARKER V. NEW ORLEANS, B.R. & V. R. CO.
695
pany, and they were invested with poweJ:to construct a railroad from New Orleans to any point on the boundary litledividing the states of Mississippi and Louisiana; with a. view of continuing such railway to Vicksburg. in Mississippi, with branch lines to Baton Rouge, and thence to ShrevepQrt;and to such other points ontha Mississippi river as may be deemed advisable, and to connect the main line with the roads of other compariies, and with mines and manufactures in Louisiana. The capital stock was to be $1,000,000, and an organization was to be effected as soon as $500,000 was subscribed and o per cent. thereon paid in. An organization was effected, and in October, 1870, the company issued first mortgage construction bonds to the amount of , and to securetheir payment· executed the mortgage set up ,by complainants. The property subjected to the mortgage is recited in the act to be as follows: "The whole of the main line of railroad and its branches and. connecting lines, including a branch line commencing at the city of Baton Rouge, and extending thence"through certain named parishes ,, . toShreveport, and als9" a branch road commencing at the main line in .the. parish ·(If East 'Baton Rougel and"extending through" certain named parishes ". **. to the Mississippi river at the city of New.Odeans, together with aU the rights of way,'road-bed, Jt8iils, depots and stations, shops, buildings; and engines, cars; tenders, and other rolling stock; also teal and personal estate within the state of Louisiana owned by said company at the date of the mortgage,or which may be acquired byit therl"after; 'Rppurtenant tO l or necessary for the operation of, said main 'line of :said railroad, or any of said branches connecting with said main line, orto'l>econnected therewith. Also. all other, property, real and personal, of every description and kind ;w:hatsoevet, and wheresoever situatedin·the state ·of Louisiana, which is now owned, or shall be; hereafter .acquired,by said company, and whichshaU be appurtenant to, or necessary fOr the operation of, said main line of railroad, or any of sllid 'branches. Also all the tenements, hereditaments, and thereunto belonging. and all of.the estate, right, tiUe, and interest, and equitable,of the said company lind its successors and assigns therein, together with the corporate franchises and privileges of said company, ·at any time'granted, or. to be granted, by the state ,of .00 ,the construction, operation, or use of said railroad within said atate." By an act March 3, 1871 j incorporating the Texas Pacific Railway .Company,lands were granted: to the defendant company to aid in the constructiOrlof a railway from New Orleans to Baton Rouge; thence. by . way of Alexandria, to connect at Shreveport with the Texas Pacific Railway·. November 11, 1871. the defendant company filed, in the general l8.nd-offi<le, a map designating the route of the line from Baton Roulte, -via. Alexandria, to Shreveport. In 1881 defendant company transferred, 'by an Mt of conveyance, aU the lands which had been granted to it by oongrel!SiMareh 3,1871,; to the New Odeans PaoificRailway Company, :6Re of tlowparties defendant inthis8uit. In March, 1881, the United Statesis8ued .patents to' said New Orleans Pacifie.Railway Company for .679,287 acres of l.anq ,situated in different parts of the state. Themort-
r
&96
FEDERAL ,REPORTER.
gage act to secure the defendant company's bonds was ,recorded in New Orleans in 1870. It was also recorded in several of the parishes through which the main line and branches were to run. At the time of the as'signment of the lands to the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, no wotkonthe main line or been begun or done by defendariteompany. The defenses relied On by defendants will be considered in the order in which they have been herein stated. The pripciples and rules of equity itre administered 'in the federal courts in Louisiana as they are elsewhere in the Union. ,1. 'Inequity, future property may be mortgaged. A railroad company nuthotbed"to borrow money and issue· bonds to enable itself to construct and stock its road, mayrnortgage snchproperty as it may ,acquire in the future,' and as soon as the property is acquired the mortgage operates on it. 1 JoneB, Mortg:;§'153; Shawv.BeU, 95 U. S. ,10;2 Story, Eq. Jtu;. §1040;,Pennock v.Cae, 23 How. 117j Dunhamv. Rauway Co.,]: Wall. i254;Mitchell v, Winslow, 2 Story, 630jPierce v.Emery, 32 N. H. 484. Thejurisprudence of Louisiana on this SUbject shows that article 3808, CivilOode,does>not forbid juridical persons to, mortgage future ,property.': Tn,this,respect such persons are governed bylegislative enactments.·, Underact of the Louisiana legislature No.,145, session 1854, and act 341, session 1855,8 railroad company. may mortgage its road, cotnpleted and to be completed; and by act No. ---"',,'sess10n 1856, such companies,areauthorjzed to mortgage their franchises and all property to aid jnthe-construction of their railroads. These, several statutes were re-enacted/in sections 726,727, 2396,2397, of the Revised Statutes. In the case of Bell v. Railroad (Jo., 34 La. Ann. 785, the Louisiana supreme court heldthtl.t a railwaycompany:may mortgage its franchises and all and prospective. 'fhedefendant company's of its' property, charter shows an express power to mortgage future property. 2. In the'case just cited it was held that the 'mortgage "attaches to property subsequently acquhed as effectively as if it had been described specifically)in'the act; it being entitled to the same effect as if it had been ajudicial'mottgage." Obviously, it would be difficult, if not impracticable, for amilway cottlpany to specifically describe:future property that might ,beal:lc!J:uired by grant or otherwise, and· the generality of the language used: in the mortgage aCt should not be fatal objection to the legal efficacy ·of the 'act l'elied on 'by complainants. Wilson v. Boyce, 92 U. S. 325j Ja,C'ksO'ltv. Delancey, 4 Cow. 427jPond v. Betgh, 10 Paige, 140. 8. The New'Orleans Pacific Railway Companydaims to be, and doubtless' is, the assignee of the lands granted' by congress, and, as such assi@:nee, the, government has issued patents to it for 679,287 aeresof said lands; therefore it is 'contended byeomplainants that said comp.any should nothe'heard to'dispute that title vested by reason of said grant in defendant company. Whether this contentiOn be oonrect or not, it seems to be clear that congress; -in: using the words "there is hereby . granted tos'aid company" alternate sections,etc., intended to make,l;l,Dd did make, a grant in prresenti to the defendant company. In Rauway Co. I
PARKER V. NKWORLEANS,B.'R. & V. R. CO.
697
v. Railway Co., 97 U. S. 496, the court, speaking of the legal of such words in a grant as "there is hereby granted," etc., say they "impart a: grant in not one in futuro, or the promise of a grant" * * * "It is true that the route of the road, in this case as in those cases, to aid in the construction of which the act was passed, was to be afterwards designated, and, until designated, the title could not atta,ch to 'any specific tracts. The grant was of sections afterwards located, and this location depended on the route established. When that was settled, the location became certain,and the title that was previously imperfect acquired precision, and attached to the lands." Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 60; Railroad Co. v. U. S., 92 U. S.738. 4. His provided by statute that mortgages executed by railway panies in; Louisiana to raise, money for their construction need not be reinscribed. Rev. St. La.' 726, 727, 2396, 2397. 5. Are the lands which were granted to the defendant company jected to the mortgage execnted to secure these bonds? The effort to b'Olve this' question leads us into difficulties which often attend the interpretation of the most carefully written agreements. In judicially determining whether or not the act we are now considering operates on the lands in we are authorized, under well-established rules of law, to consider the language used:in the act; the extent and nature of the authority of the parties; the intention, object, or purpose they hlld,or may have had, in so contracting;, the character and use of the property subjected to the mortgage, and circumstances attending its execution. 3 Wood, Ry. Law, 1617; Smithy. McOullough, 104 U. S. 25. The right and authority ofdefendant company to Bubjectall of its present and prospective property ,as well as its franchises, and privileges, to this mortgage, seems to be clearly shown by the laws of Louisianal and by its charter. It seems,too, to be well settled that when a railway company is 'empowered, by its charter, to mortgage all of its property, privileges, and franch1ises, after-acquired property passes, as an incident to the franchise to acquire property, by a mortgage of the franchise and property of the company. Such a mortgage seems to be a conveyance of the property and franchises of the company as an entire thing. Pierce v. Emery, 32 N.H.484;: Phillips v. WinSlow, 18 B. Mon, 431; Willink v. Banking Co., 4 N. J. Eq. 377. Under this principle,a mortgage given by a railroad company ouits franchises and road to be thereafter built, covers a branch road not in contemplation at the time of the mortgage. Coe v. Railroad Co., 4 Amer. & Eng.R. Oa8.513. Such· circumstances as may be gathered from the evidence shows that a great scheme for building a railway from New Orleans to Vicksburg, with branch lines to Baton Rouge and Shreveport, and to such points on the Mississippi river as maybe thought advisable, and to connect the main lines with the railways then being built, or in operation, in adjoining states, and with mines and factories in Louisiana, engaged the attention and effort of certain persons, who obtained a charter grauting the amplest ,powers to build the New Orleans, .Baton Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad, from. the state' legislature. The capital stock was fixed at
FEDERALBEPORTER.
$1,000,000; the subscriptions at $500,000; and as $25,000 was paid in, tHe cempany was.organized.· In the act the state-gave the right of way tht011gh pUblidands, and authorized the issuance of second mortgage :bGnds to the amount of $12,500 per mile of the main line and the bonds to bear 8 per icent. interest, to begt:larantied, principal andinhlrest, by the state, and to be secured by a mortgage on all , the property owned by the company at the date of the ;mortgage, or . which might thereafter be acquired. The company was also authorized to issue first: mortgage construction bonds, to be secured by a mortgage on the property described in the;aotwhich is herein, quoted. In addition to all this, aid was ;solicited ,'obtained by defendant company Congress, in .the March following the iSSl,laDCe of these bonds, having before it the bilLtoincorporate and f!,id; in, the building of the Texas Pacific Railway, grtmted, in that bill, over 1,000,000 acres ofland', to defendant companyti':' Rich in franchises,atld munificent had no money beyond the paltry sum of 825,,, 000, paid· inion BUbscriptio'ns.<%e,company issued 6,250 bonds, each for $1 ,OOO;:payll.ble in 40 years,'with8percent.interest, in NewYor:k, ol'twohundl:'(idpounds sterling at London. The bondsiare dated Octo:ber 1, 187tl:: iTheact granting the: lands was approved March 3,1871. It is and we think with a great deal of force, that :it was, at the time; these bonds were issued, a matter of pUblic hilStbry,;of which the 'CQuxt,should take cognizance, that the bill toincorporaitetheTexas PaeificRaiJ;way in which the land graot'was: 'made to defendant': company-:-was, and :had been for sOme incongress,!and that though the ,8.ctwas not a law untilltfter'tbertB'Suance of thebonclti,1he incol'poratol'8 of defendant paniexpeated;1ind. had reasontq,lbelieve, the said act would become a Iai\' ,and thel'ecitals in the'bllndirwere intended. to convey the idest<) all concerned ·thaitthe mortgage given to secure the bonds ,would operate on all the! lands granted by cOQg,ess to aid in the construction of the New Orleans, Baton Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad.,Fromthe salient facts and circumstances which this case discloses, it is difficult to avoid the conclusidnth8t the incorporators, bavmg $0 great· an enterprise on hand, with a SUbscription of $500,000; and only $25,000 olthat amount paid in; the legislatlll'e, anxious to have:thepublic work completed; and all parties interested j' expected the niaitl'1ines, over 500 miles in length, to becoristructed with the, money derived entirely from the sale of these bonds. The company had the power, to subject the lands that would be covered by which 'Was; at the time of the mortgage, being solicited frum the government, and Which Congress shortly afterwards granted to defendant company, to' a·mortgage to secure the payments of any bonds it might issue in aid of itS main lines and branChes. And when we considel' its ample powers and thijcircumstailces!attending its organ-izationand purpose, it seems to be 'reasonable toconclnde that the direetoryof the·idompany intended to exhaustall of their 'power and means to make the'bonds'now sued on an attractive. and safe iPJvestment for the very nature. of things it seems' that tliey, as well as
PARKER V.NEW ORLEANS, B; .R. "" V. R. 00·
699
.the· public, could look'aloile to the successful negotiation or sale of these -bonds for money to <harry out their great purpose. The draughtsman of the mortgage act, in his effort to show clearly,.and emphasize by specialand-'general recitals,what. property was sUbjected to, the mortgage, after! using language, a critical analysis of which shows that the 'mortgagor intended to subjoot to the mortgage all the property, present. and prospective,of the company,...-that is, the "whole road;" using, the word "road"as synonymous with corporation, as was done by the court in Pierce v.Emery, 32 N. H. 484 ,-as a whole thing, with all its corporate rights and franchises,and incidentally, and byway of aoeession, all of the subsequently acquired property of the road, concludes hisdeseription of the property by adding the following language: "Also the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereto belonging, and all, the estate, right, title, and interest, legal and equitable, of the said company and its-successors and assigns therein, together with all the corporate fr8lllchiSesand privileges ofsaid company at any time granted, or to be granted j by the state of Louisiana relative to the construction, operation, or use of said. railroad within said state." Suppose the defendant com.pany, !having authority to sell, had sold the property described in the mortgage act,could not. the :vendee,in a suit at law, vindicate title to -the lands in question? Would it beheld that the said. lands were not embraced in an act ofsaJe in which such language as found in this mortgage was used? The same words which, when used in act of sale, imporLaconveyance of certain lands must, when they,appear in act of mortgage; import· a mortgage oftho.se lands. Manufacturing Q). v. Bank, 119 U.S. 191,7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 187· .The New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, by way of illustrating the inequitable character of complainants' demands, says the New. Orleans, Baton Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad Com pany never built any of the railway contemplated in its charter, and therefore never earned a foot of the land, grant. The contention as to the defendant company never having built any of the road is true, as a fact; but if it be true in law that title vested, by reason of the grant, in defendant company, andthatfiling the mllp designating the route, in the general land-office, caused the title which was· previously imperfect to acquire precision and attach to the lands mentioned in the grant, the fact as to ,whether any of the lands wereeamed by defendant company becomes a matter about which the not the assignee, may inquire. Between the New Orleans:Pacific Railway Company.and the grantee, the defendant company, to Whom congress saw fit, under such conditions as public policy suggested, to giVe the lands, there can be no question, under the facts in this case, for the court's consideration as to whether one or the other or neither of the parties earned the lands in question. There mayor may not have been conditions imposed by congress on the grantee, the failure to comply with which would have authorized congress, by proper proceedings, to withdraw the lands from defendant company. But, so far as we are advised, the grantor has done nothing, beyond allowing the assignment of the lands to the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, to affect the title
700
FEDERAL ·REPORTER.
'which was vested in' the defendant company by the act March 3, 1873. And it is well settled that no individual can assail the title the government has given, on the ground that the grantee has failed to perform the 'conditions, if any, imposed on the Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 44.. The New Orleans Pacific R!lilwayOompany took the lands as they were held by defendant; subject to all liens inequity or in law imposed on them in favor of the bonafide holders of these bonds. There Was no withdrawal of the land's by the grantor, and no· new grant of them made to the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company. It was thl;l policy of the government, probably at the solicitation and in the mutual interest of both. companies, to allow and sanction the transfer 'of the lands"and the New Railway Company became the assignee, with full knowledge of all' the facts. Notably among these facts it was known that the grant was one in prmsenti, not one in futuro, or a promise to- make a grant; that defendant company had in November, 1871. filed a map designating the route from Baton Rouge, via Alexandria to Shreveport,and that, by filing such a map,the title to the lands, previously imperfect, acquired precision, and attached to the lands; that the mortgage subjecting these lands to secure the payment of the bonds was registered at the company's domicile; that, whatever rights, in equity or in law, the mortgagees have, were vested in them prior to the transfer, and such rights cannot be affected by any equities which might appear to 00 in the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company because of the fact that that company constructed a railway from Baton Rouge, via .Alexandria', '.to Shreveport. ' The facts and authorities show that whatever rights remained in the sovereign grantor, after the passage of the 'act under which the land. gl'llntwas made to the New Orleans, Baton ,Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad Company, the title to the lands passed in pra:senti,"'and ''Was' completed to that company when cohgress, in the in,terest of public policy, a.llowed or provided for their assignment. Con'gress did'not make anyeff6rt to retake the lands, or to make a new grant ·of-themto the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company, and we may fairly presume that its action, in allowing the transfer of the lands, was )based on the· view of the facts and law herein suggested. Considering .that the Jands -at·the time of the transfer were affected by complainant's 'mortgage rights; and that this .suit can affect no property of the New Orleans 'Pacifio· Railway Company, the assignee under the· favor of the and that complainant was in no way a party to the transfer, .r do not think the facts set 'up by the assignee to show the absence of equity in complainant's demand can be heard to affect the rights he clearly had at the time of the· said transfer. A decree will be entered .for complainant.
MISSOURI PAC. RY.
V.TEXAS
&
P. RY. CO.
701
MISSOURI PAC. Ry. CO. V. TEXAS & P. Ry. CO., BRADFORD, (Intervenor. I) (Oircuit Vowt, E. D. Louiaiana. January 2, 1888.) RAILROAD COMPANIES-RECEIVER-INJURIES TO EMPLOYES-PAYMENT OF WAGES.
A switchman claimed from the receivers of defendant company compensation for injuries sustained in the line of his duty. The master reported, exonerating the company from liability for negligence. Held, that it was just and good policy for the company to pay wages during recovery from the injuries so received.
J. S. Bradford, as intervenor, filed a claim against the receivers ofthe Texas & PaQific Railway Company, for damages for injuries sustained by him while a. switchman in the' employ of that railway. The master, while exonerating the receivers,allowed the claimant his wages at $2.50 a day for the 64 days he was laid up from his injuries. The receivers excepted to the master's report, on the ground that they were free from blame. 'fhe following is the order of the court in the Freundlich Case, referred to in the opinion: .. Whereas it appears to the court, from evidence on file in this cause, that one S. Freundlich. employed by the receivers in this cause in operating the Texas & Pacific Railway property, while in the discharge of his duty as a earpenter in tbe car department. at Big Springs, Texas. met with an accident, without any negligence on. his part, whereby his left eye was struck with an iron sliyer. resultmg. after great pain and suffering. in ihe total loss of the eye. and incapacitating said FreuIidlich from work from June 9,1886, toSElptember. 5, 1886; and whereas the receivers in this cause doubt their authority to pay 'wages to said Freundlich during the time he was so as aforesaid disabled by reason of said accident, and as it appears to the court that not only equity and good'conscience justify. but good railway management. requires"tllat in such cases wages be not stopped during temporary sickness resultingfrOI!l accidents in the line of duty, unaccompaand nied with contributory negligElnc6. it is ordered and adjudged that said ers are authorized and directed to pay to said S. Freundlich full wages'·fi'om June 9; 1886. to September 5, 1886. the same as if during that period he had worked at his regular employment. prOVided the same shall not exceed one hundred dollars per month."
In Equity.
Intervening petition.
W. W. Howe, for receivers. PARDEE, J., (orally.) In this case, which is one where the intervenor, being an employe of the receh:ers, claims compensation for damages received in the line of his duty , the master reports exonerating the receivers from liability for negligence, and yet allowing the intervenor payment of wages during the time he was laid up from his injuries. The evidence and report seem to bein:line with the ClUJeoj Freundlich, and with .9thers court has it just and gqod policy for the receivers, tQ'pay.}Vages during froll} injuries received in the line of lRepQrted by. Charles B.Sta1rord, Esq., of the New Orleans Bar.