Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/18

 TAILOS V. PHILADELFHIA & BKADING B. CO. 3 �iiigs of the road are amply sufficient to make the purchase required ; and, if necessary, these earaings should be so applied. The ground upon which the petitioners desire to borrow, instead of using such moneys, is that these moneys may be applied to payment of the bonded creditors of the company, in discharge of interest. The court esteems it wiser to allow such interest to go unpaid rather th*n dis- charge it by means of borrowing money, which may tend to mislead creditors and others, respecting the actual condition of the road and its eamings. It must be borne in mind that the court 's eustody of this property is not likely to continue very much longer. The foreclosure proceeding bas been running for eighteen months, and should reach its termination without unnecessary delay. The court expects it to do so. The interests of all parties involved require that the road and other property shall pass into the eustody and management of owners without prolonged delay. �The modern practice, prevailing to some extent, of transferring corporate property to the eustody of the courts, to be thus held and managed for an indefinite period of years, to suit the convenience of parties, (whereby general creditors are kept at bay,) I regard as a mischievous innovation. I have no doubt the petitioners are fully satisfied of the msdom of the proceeding which they suggest, and that they are actuated by a sincere desire to promote the best interests of the road; and they have in this the approval of the present board of managers. We do not, however, agree with them, and must be govemed respecting it by our own jjidgment. The peti- tion is therefore disallowed, �McKennan, C. J., (orally.) I concur in what Judge Butler bas said. The objeot of the proceeding whereby the property of the company was placed in charge of the court, and the character of the court's authority respecting it, we have heretofore had occasion to explain very fully. We hold the, property of the railroad company to pre- serve it, — to keep it in its present condition while the proceedings under the bill of foreclosure are being prosecuted to their terminationl I entertain considerable doubt of the authority of the court to make the order asked for, and this of itself is sufficient for me; but I agree with Judge Butler in all he bas said respecting the inexpediency of making the order, even if we had authority so to do. The property should pass, with as little delay as is reasonably practicable, into the possession and control of owners who will best be able to determine how it should be managed, and what measures relating to it are most ��� �