8 FEDERAL REPORTER.
dered yesterday. Counsel for the receivers stated that they had not
, had an opportunity to examine the order carefully; but, from the
casual examination which they had given it, they had discovered some
parts of the order were objectionable, and not in accordance with the
Ending of the court on yesterday.
_ Treat, J. You will understand that we direct our receivers to allow
these tracks to be laid upon the party giving bond to answer to any
damages that may accrue to the receivers or their successors, and
there we stop. We have nothing more to say. We hope to get rid
· of this property at an early day, and then the purchasers may litigate
these matters wherever they please. We are not going to charge a
perpetuity or burden upon this property while it is in our possession
temporarily.
Mr. —. But while it is in the possession of the court it will per-
mit these crossings to be made ?
— Treat,.J. Yes.
·.Mr. Priest. I understood this question to be addressed to Judge
BREWER, on the supposition that the Wabash Railway Company for
itself might undertake to prevent the location of these tracks, so far
as its interests were concerned,-that is, a remainder interest, not a
present possession or interest,but whatever future interest it may have,
—-that the courts would be open to it for the protection of those inter-
ests in any mannerit might deem advisable.
r Treat, J. The simple proposition was this. Perhaps you did not
catch the remarks of Brother BREWER in their entirety, andI did not
wish to supplement them, except on one or two points, that the find-
ing might be understood. Here is a property, as far as the court is
at present advised, by which you have spurs,. so to speak, running
down `to the river in every direction. Here is a rival road, if you
choose, that cannot accomplish its ends without crossing your various
spurs. Now your various spurs depend upon different titles. For
some you have a license from the city. If we take up for adjudica-
tion each one of these crossings, with separate interests, there might
be very important separate inquiries. In regard to the depot, you
have the question of "damages," as well as the condemnation of the
absolute right of property elsewhere. There are many grave questions
involved, but this court did not choose to pass upon those at all, for
the reason that this property is in the hands of the receivers of this
` court temporarily. What shall be done with the property while in
the hands of the receivers is one question, and the court would not un-
dertake to adjudicate, through the process of condemnation, or oth-
erwise, the ultimate determination of questions connected with this
vast property. It is no part of the business of this court, when this
property is in the hands of the receivers, to adjudicate such ques-
tions at all. We cannot go back and create any rights or liens on
this property that shall pass, not only as against the present own—
ers of the property, but against all purchasers hereafter, or estab-