Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 46
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
48 RYAN V, HAYS. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
not offered in evidence, and it does not appear that it was or was
not strictly in accordance with the resolution. In the absence of
proof to the contrary, it will be presumed that the directory executed
the bonds in accordance with the direction of the stockholders
contained in the resolution.
About the last of December, 1879, the receiver passed his account
final, and was discharged from his trust; he, however, turned over
the property which was in his hands to the railway company prior
to that time.
It appears that, during his receivership, Hays received and expended
the earnings of the road, under the order of the court that
appointed him; that he erected an office, built machine shops, and
bought considerable machinery, and that, so far as money earned
by the road was applied to its betterment, the same was acquired
by the corporation in the repurchase.
What sum from the earnings of the road was invested in improving
the same does not appear.
The receiver was appointed upon the petition of the mortgage
bondholders, about the 1st April, 1878.
The cause was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict as
" We, the jury, find at the time of the accident, that R. S. Hays
was receiver of the International Railroad, and since the 1st day of
November, 1879, it has been in possession of the International &
Great Northern Railroad Company. We find for the plaintiff, John
Ryan, the sum of $2,200."
On this verdict the court rendered judgment against the corporation,
after reciting many facts not found by the verdict, but fully
proved during the trial.
The railroad company appealed, and the plaintiff prosecutes a
writ of error against the receiver, and, at request of both parties,
the two cases are consolidated.
It does not appear that the action was brought against the receiver
with the consent of the court that appointed him, nor that
any steps whatever were taken to have any part of the fund, in his
hands, retained under the control of that court to satisfy any claim
which the plaintiff might establish in this suit, nor does it appear
that any opposition was made to his discharge before the adjustment
of the plaintiff's claim should be made.
It is not pretended that any facts existed which would have rendered
the receiver responsible, otherwise than officially, for the injuries
alleged to have been received by the plaintiff.
Under such a state of facts, we do not perceive that the receiver
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62., book, 1885; Austin, Texas. (texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28512/m1/68/: accessed June 25, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, texashistory.unt.edu; .