Farmers' Loan Co. v. Or. Pac. R. R.

48 P. 706 | Or. | 1897

Mr. Justice Bean,

after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is, so far as we can ascertain, the first recorded Instance in the judicial history of railroad receiver-ships in which the trust fund was insufficient to pay -the employees of the receiver engaged in the operation of the road; and hence we are unaided in the determination of the question before us by any judicial decision directly in point. The contention of the petitioners seems to be that a receiver of a railroad appointed in a suit to foreclose a mortgage on the road, and clothed with authority to operate it, is as much -the representative of the plaintiff as a sheriff who levies upon property under a writ of attachment, and -that the operating expenses incurred by him are costs or fees of the litigation, and, like the fees of the sheriff in the case referred to, are collectible from the plaintiff. But this argument is based upon an entire misapprehension of a railroad receiver’s position and duties. He is not, like a sheriff in an attachment action, the agent of the plaintiff in the litigation, nor does the plaintiff have any control or authority over him whatever. He is agent and executive officer of the court, which, by virtue of its high prerogative powers, lays its judicial hand upon the property which is the subject of controversy and controls and operates it for the use and benefit, not of either of the parties to the litigation, but for the public and whomsoever in the end it may concern. His acts and possession are the acts and possession of the court. His contracts and liabilities in contemplation of law are the contracts and liabilities of the court. The parties to the litigation have not the least authority over him; nor have they any right to determine what liabilities he may or may not incur. His authority is derived solely from the act of the court appointing him, and he is the subject of its order only. “A receiver of a railroad,” says Mr. Justice Caldwell, “is a person appointed to receive and preserve the property of a railroad company, and is clothed with authority to operate the railroad and receive the earnings and income therefrom during the pendency of the foreclosure suit. In contemplation of law, the railroad is in the custody of, and operated by, the court appointing the receiver. The receiver is the agent of the court. He is an officer of the court, and his possession of the property is the possession of the court. He is not the agent of either party to the suit, and neither .party is responsible for his contracts or for his malfeasance or misfeasance in office. * * * The liabilities incurred by the receiver in the operation of the road are, strictly speaking, the liabilities of the court appointing the receiver:” 30 Am. L. Rev. 161. And in Quincy Railroad Company v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82, the court, speaking of the Wabash receivers, said: “ They were ministerial officers appointed by the court of chancery to take possession of and preserve, pendente lite, the fund or property in litigation; mere custodians, coming within the rules stated in Union National Bank v. Bank of Kansas City, 136 U. S. 223, 236, where this court said: ‘A receiver derives his authority from the act of the court appointing him, and not from the act of the parties at whose suggestion or by whose consent he is appointed; and the utmost effect of his appointment is to put the property from that time into his custody as an officer of the court, for the benefit of the party ultimately proved to be entitled, but not to change the title, or even the right of possession in the property.’ ”

So, also, in the case of New York & Pennsylvania R. R. Company v. New York & Erie R. R. Company, 58 Fed. 268, it is said: “Receivers are but officers and agents of the court. While necessarily much is committed to their judgment and discretion, yet their power depends upon the decrees and directions of the courts appointing them. Receiverships of railroad properties are in a large part peculiar appointments. Railroads, as public carriers, are charged with great public duties, and the public are interested that their operation shall be continuous. Creditors are likewise interested that there shall be no cessasion in their maintenance as going concerns, because their value as property depends upon the active use of the line.” These considerations have developed the present well settled proposition that such receivers are the mere custodians of the property, and hold for and as mere agents of the court. Speaking of the character of such trustees, and the effect of such holding upon the interests procuring the appointment, Chief Justice Waite said: “The possession taken by the receiver is only that of the court, whose officer he is, and adds nothing to the previously existing title of the mortgagees. He holds, pending the litigation, for the benefit of whomsoever in the end it shall be found to concern, and in the meantime the court proceeds to determine the rights of the parties upon the same principles it would if no change of possession had taken place: Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 251; Quincy R. R. Company v. Humphreys, 145 U. S. 82. A receiver represents no particular interest or class of interests. He holds for the benéfit of all who may ultimately show an interest in the property. He stands no more for the creditor than the owner. They are not assignees, and the principles of common law applicable to assignees do not define or determine the character of a receiver’s possession, or its effects upon the rights of those interested in the property in their possession. Receivers ought not to be appointed to represent the peculiar interests of one class.” To the same effect, see Texas Railway Company v. Rust, 17 Fed. 275; Central Trust Company v. Wabash R. R. Company, 23 Fed. 863; Ames v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 60 Fed. 966; and Union Trust Company v. Illinois Midland R. R. Company, 177 U. S. 455.

A railroad receiver is therefore more than a mere custodian of the property, like a sheriff holding under a writ of attachment or execution. He is, in effect, the hand of the court' which holds the property while it operates the road pending the litigation for the benefit of the general public, as well as the creditors of the insolvent corporation. It is for this reason that the expenses of the receivership are chargeable as a lien upon the property superior to all other liens. The plaintiff, at whose instance the receiver is appointed, thereby consents to the absolute control and management of the mortgaged property by the court and its agents and to the priority of claims for the expenses incurred in its operation and management; but it is not perceived upon what ground it can be claimed that, because the expenses of the receivership are' allowed without any fault of his to exceed the value of the mortgaged property, thus entirely destroying his security, he must, in addition to the loss of his debt, be compelled to make good the deficit, unless the order of appointment was made upon that condition. He has no control over the acts of the receiver, and if, without his consent, he is to be held responsible therefor, he is liable to absolute bankruptcy and ruin. Such a rule would render the plaintiff’s position so uncertain and precarious as practically to preclude him from any protection whatever through the appointment of a receiver pending the foreclosure suit. But the inquiry is made, “ shall not a railroad mortgagee who applies for and obtains the appointment of a receiver, with authority to operate the road, be held responsible for the liabilities incurred by such officer when they cannot be made out of the property itself?” We think not, unless such responsibility was imposed as a condition to the appointment or the continuance of the receiver in office. The appointment of a receiver in a suit to foreclose a railroad mortgage is not a matter of strict right, but rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court; and it may, as a condition to issuing the necessary order, impose such terms as may, under the circumstances of the particular case, appear to be reasonable, and, if not acceded to, may refuse to make the order: 30 Am. L. Rev. 161; Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235.

If, therefore, upon an application for the appointment of a railroad receiver, it appears probable that the income and corpus will prove insufficient to pay the expenses and liabilities thereof, we have no doubt that the court may require of the plaintiff, as a condition to such appointment, a guaranty of the payment of the expenses of such officer. And if, at any time after the appointment has been made, it becomes apparent to the court that it will be unable to pay and discharge the present or future liabilities incurred by its executive officer and manager, it should refuse to continue the operation of the road under the receiver, unless its expenses are guaranteed. No court is bound or ought to engage or continue in the operation of a railroad or any other enterprise without the ability to promptly discharge its obligations, and, unless it can do so, it should keep out or immediately go out of the business. But, unless such terms are imposed as a condition of the appointment or continuation in office of the receiver, his employees must look to the property in the custody of the court and its income for their compensation. They have no claim whatever on any of the parties to the litigation. They are the employees and servants of the court, and not of the parties. Their wages are in no sense costs of the litigation; and, although incurred during the progress of the suit, they are not incurred in the suit. They are neither expenses of the plaintiff, nor of the defendant, and are not fees or costs which can be charged against the successful party to the litigation, as is sought to be done in this case. It follows that the order appealed from must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Affirmed.