INVESTMENT co. vromo as N.<_W. 12. co. 51;
tract, which is mortgaged; for the deferred payments; The land is es-
pecially valuable because of its containing a deposit of gravel available,
not only for the uses of the road, but for sale. The receiver enumerates
advantages and benefits which, in his opinion, will result to the com·
pany and its creditors, by way of curtailing expenses, increasing busi-
ness, enlarging receipts, and accumulating good-will; but it is unneces-
sary to particularize them. The receiver files with his petition the con-
‘ sent to the issue of the certincates asked for of the holders of $943,000
of the first mortgage bonds, and of $293,000 second mortgage bonds;
leaving $257,000 first mortgage bonds and $219,000 second mortgage
bonds for which no consents are filed. No consents of lienholders other
than bondholders are filed, and it does not appear from the bill or peti-
tion whether there are any such. The petition; was filed Saturday, Au- ‘
gust 3d, and presented for allowance Wednesday, August Sth, to me, at
Asheville, N. C. How many of the non-consenting bondholders, or of
other lienholders had notice, does not appear, but none of them were
present iin person or by counsel. On the evening of the day when the
application was presented, the Mercantile Trust Company of New York
city, trustee of the first mortgage, telegraphed that it had been advised
by telegram of the application, and that it objected to any order which
should affect rights ot`bondholders not joining in the petition. Letters
also were received; one dated at Cincinnati, August 6th, from counsel
representing parties there resident holding $47 ,500 Brst mortgage bonds
and $97,000 second mortgage bonds, who object to the issuing of cer-
tificates. They 60m plain that they only learned incidentally, the evening
of the day previous, the time and place of the application, to which they
object vigorously, stating that "the object of the application seems to be
to enter upon ageneral plan or scheme of enlargement of the property,"
and that " the only part of the application that could by any possibility
be an exception to the above objection taken byrus is for the laying of
new rails between Sardinia and Batavia Junction." There is also pre-
sented on behalf of contractors for building a part of the company ’s line
of road_, whorobject to the issue of certificates, and who claim to have a
statutory lien for a portion ofthe amount due them for work done, an
aflidavit dated August 11th, setting forth, among other things, that
$2,000,000 only of stock have been issued; that not a dollar has been
received on stockvsubsoriplions; and that the entire issue was parceled A
out between the president and board of directors, who paid nothing for
it,¤and who. still hold it. Whatever the fact may be, it cannot beal-
lowed to prejudice, bondholdersor claimants who it is not even suggested
were parties to it. The condition of the company and of the road, which
has been only outlined in this opinion, from papers on file, strongly in-
dicates, however, that, if the stock subscriptions have been paid, neither
the moneyderived from that source, nor that from the sale or hypothe·
cation of bonds, has been applied to the road, or to the -proper purposes
of the eompauvyyw, any greater extent than it gwas possible to avoid, _ r
. _The_‘power¢of UnitedStates courts to authorize thelissue of receiver’s
n certiflcates,jand»,;to;.n1ake themmcharge uponyrailroads andtheir prop-