14 F. Cas. 321 | U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota | 1873
I am of opinion, ■upon the facts shown by the pleadings, exhibits, and affidavits, that the plaintiffs are entitled to a receiver as respects the St Paul & Pacific Company, but not as respects the other defendants. The application has been earnestly pressed as against the First Division Company on the ground of the diversion of the loan for the benefit of that company. But it appears that the road of this company is mortgaged probably to its full value to bous. fide holders of bonds who had no notice of the equity set up by the plaintiffs. The contingency of the plaintiffs establishing- an equitable lien upon the road of the First Division Company, as against its mortgage bondholders, is so improbable as to render it quite clear that the application for a receiver should, to this extent, be denied. But as against the St. Paul Company, it is manifest that unless a receiver is appointed no further work will be done upon the extension lines, and that the land grant, which is the only security of any considerable value which the plaintiffs and other bondholders have for their large advances, will lapse ' and be wholly lost. In order to save this land grant the road must be completed by December 3, ensuing; and it seems to me that the exigencies of the case are such as, under the circumstances, to warrant the court, upon the application of the parties chiefly interested, to appoint a receiver and to clothe him with the powers desired.
An order may be drawn up accordingly. Receiver appointed.