VOL. XIV.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 105 (CHAMBERS) In re 1912 THE AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE AND FOUNDRY Au t g 1. COMPANY. PLAINTIFF ; and THE PÈRE MARQUETTE RAILROAD COM- PANY. DEFENDANT. Railway Company—Receiver—Application to settle Claims arising before • Appointment of Receivers—Grounds for Refusing Application. THIS was an application, before Mr. Justice Audette in Chambers, for an order authorizing one of the Receivers of the defendant company to settle certain claims against the railway. August 1, 1912. Britton Osier supported the application, on behalf of the defendant. No one appeared for the plaintiff. AUDETTE, J. This is an application . on behalf of • the Receivers appointed herein for authority to settle • and pay: 1. Claims by injured employees,. passengers and others, expenses incidental thereto, even though some parts thereof had been incurred more than six months before the appointment of the Receivers herein. 2. Bills due prior to , the appointment of the said Receivers on contracts of the said Railroad Company for construction or repair work on bridges, buildings and other railroad property where the 'work is still in progress.
106 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. XIV. 1912 3. Bills for witness fees, Court fees, lawyers' fees THE and other expenses in connection with the conduct of AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE the legal department dur'ng said six months period. AND FOUNDRY CO. . 4., Bills of newspapers for printing display advertise-a THE PÉRE ments of the Railroad company's service during said MARQUETTE RAILROAD CO. six months period. Reasons for Judgment. 5. Claims for personal injuries, injuries to live stock killed along the line of the railroad company, and for damage to property caused prior to the appointment of the Receivers, provided that in each such case the claim can be settled for an amount which in the judgment of the said Receivers is no greater than would be the expense of preparing and conducting a defence. No such sweeping application can, indeed, be granted under the circumstances upon such scanty material as that filed in support of the application. An order of this kind would indeed vest the Receivers with such powers as would enable them to defeat the very spirit of the law where the property of a debtor is placed in sequestration in the hands of a Receiver to look after the interests of the creditors of the defendant. By granting the prayer of the first clause, authority ' would be given to the Receivers to pay even prescribed claims,—claims extinguished by the statute of limita- •t ions. With respect to the second clause no information is given to the Court whether the contracts in question involve large or small amounts. With respect to counts 3, 4 and 5, suffice it to say that such claims cannot be paid ànd settled without giving the creditors an opportunity of showing cause and saying whether the judgment of the Receivers is good or bad. All such claims as are mentioned in this application can only be paid upon submitting them to the Court
VOL. XIV.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. upon their merits, and allowing the creditors. to show cause. Following another course and giving the Re- ceivers carte blanche would be defeating the principle of law obtaining in the present class of cases. Â. similar order consecrating the same principle wasTHE made on the 16th February, 1906, by Mr. Justice Bur= bidge, in Horn v. Père Marquette Rd. Co. (Vide dette's Exchequer Court Practice, 2nd Ed., p. 147). The application is refused. • 107 19 12 THE AMERICAN BRAKE SHOE FOÛNDRY Co. 9. PRE MARQUE RAIL"AD Co. Au- Reckons for Judgment. Order accordingly.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.