Central Trust Co. v. Third Avenue Ry. Co.
Opinion of the Court
(orally). Manifestly upon the face of the bill, and counsel in the case do not in any way controvert it, the bondholders under this large Third avenue mortgage are entitled as of right to the appointment of a temporary receiver, to be made permanent when the time comes to declare the principal due, and to proceed with the foreclosure. Of course, whatever order is prepared will contain proper clauses for the return of the property and the cessation of the holding or activity of the receiver in the event of the payment of the interest before the expiration of the days of grace. That a receiver should now be appointed is certain. That there should be two receivers appointed at this stage of the case seems wholly unreasonable and unwarranted, and unnecessarily expensive. One receiver can discharge the functions perfectly well. If, in the future, it should become necessary to unite to the receiver, who is a lawyer, some other receiver who may be a business man or an operating or financial man,, or for some other reason such as the circumstances that conflicting camps of bondholders, represented by their respective committees, reach such a stage of entanglement that it seems necessary that both should be represented in the management, the occasion can then be availed of, but to undertake now to appoint two receivers to discharge the functions about to be intrusted to a receiver of the Third Avenue Railway Company seems to me most unwise, and not to be considered.
There remains then only the question as to who‘the receiver shall be. Mr. Whitridge has been nominated by the trustee under the mortgage and by the committee of bondholders who* represent substantially a majority of the bonds, even if through some technicality a number of bonds are not yet actually filed. From the stockholders, so far'as we hear anything from them, there comes no objection to his selection, only from certain bondholders vague criticisms upon the propriety of the court making such an appointment upon the request of a majority of the bondholders. The court, on the contrary, has reason to feel
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.