12 __;. _ FEDERAL REPORTER. . ~
Curran. Tnusr Co. and another v. Wxsssu, S·1·. L. & P. RY. Co.
and others. (Ysxur, Intervenor.)'
(Circuit Ucmrt, E. 1}. Missouri. January 5, 1886.)
RAILROAD CoMPAN1ms—FnNcns— Doom.}; Damsoiss ron Krnmne CA·r·r1.E~Rn-
CEIVERS—REV. Sr. Mo. $1 800. _ _
* · The factthat a railroa 1S in the hands of receivers of this court does not
make it any the less liable under section 809 of the¤Revised Smmms nf Mis·
souri for double damages for killing cattle.
· In Equity. Petition for rehearing on the intervening petition.
The intervenor asks in his petition for double damages for the
killing of two heifers by the Quincy, Missouri & Pacific Railroad,
June ,11, 1884, and alleges that the heifers were reasonably worth
when killed $550, and $50, respectively. The double damages were
claimed under section 809, Bev. St. Mo. The claim having been re-
ferred to a master, he reported that the intervenor was not entitled
to double damages, and that the cattle were only worth $200, and
$30, respectively. He recommended, therefore, that the following
order be entered: "Ordered that the receiver herein pay to Peter
H. Yakey out of the incoming rents and profits of the property in their
charge, not otherwise appropriated by the previous orders of this court,
the sum of $230, with interest at the rate of six per cent. from the
thirteenth day of June, 1885.” The intervenor excepted to this re-
port, and it was overruled by Tamar, J., as to double damages not be-
ing allowable, and in other respects confirmed. The matter now comes
up on a motion by the receivers for a rehearing, asking that the mas-
ter’s report be confirmed in all things.
H. S. Priest, George S. Grover, and E. Smith, for receivers.
. James Carr, for intervenor. I
· Bsuwna, J., (orally.) In this case the only question is whether
the double damage act of the state of Missouri is to be enforced as
against railroad property in the hands of a receiver. The supreme
court of the United States have afdrmed the validityof that act;’ and
I know of no reason why it is not applicable to every road in the
state, whether in or out of the hands of a receiver. It is true there
may be no equity, where the court takes possession of the assets of
an insolvent corporation, in saying to one man, whose cow is killed,
"We will double the value of your cow as a basis of adjustment," and
. to a man who has done a day’siwork, "We will adjust your claim
only at the value of such work, " and then distribute the assets upon
that basis between them. But while there may be no equity in that
modeof distribution, (and so I said in response to a letter written by
some one who wanted to have me send all these cow cases to the state
courts for trial,) yet when the question is put directly before the court
*Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., ofthe St. Louis bar.
*Missouri Pac. Ry. Co. v. Humes, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 110.