case. The observations which I have made show that, in my opinion no distinction should be made between the sale-moneys and the interim rents of the surplus lands. The order of the 20th November, directing the sale-moneys of surplus lands to be paid to the receiver, ought in my opinion to be discharged. As to the orders of the 12th and 17th of July, and the motion before us in the suit of Gardner, there ought, in my opinion, to be an order for a receiver of the tolls and sums of money arising from the undertakings mentioned in the two suits of Gardner and in the suit of Drawbridge, following the words of the securities. This would ordinarily be sufficient; but as the question of the salemoneys of surplus lands has been raised and argued, I think that in each order it should be added: This order is not to extend to any rents or sale-moneys arising from surplus lands of the company.' The costs in these orders, both in the court below and before us, ought in my opinion to be costs in the respective causes. Although I have arrived at the conclusion which I have expressed without hesitation, I cannot avoid feeling regret that securities such as railway debentures, upon which so many millions of money have been invested, should have been left at their creation in a state to admit of so much argument as has taken place in this case, and that their legal operation and extent should come to be defined, not at the time when they were given as security, but after difficulties have arisen in their repayment. "It only remains to consider the case of the Imperial Mercantile Credit Association. This company claim under Messrs. Peto, Betts, and Crampton, and are transferees of their rights (whatever these may be), against the proceeds of certain surplus land of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company, mentioned in their bill. The allegations are that a sum of £135,000 was due from the company to Peto and Co. as contractors for executing works, and that the directors of the company gave Peto and Co. a charge for this sum on the sale-moneys arising from these particular surplus lands. Prima facie evidence, and resolutions of the directors admitting the debt and making the charge are verified, and the company at the bar have admitted the claim, desiring, however, not to be taken as acknowledging the specific amount of the debt due to Peto and Co. It cannot, in my opinion, be doubted but that the company, owing their contractors a sum for works done, might have paid that sum out of those surplus sale-moneys (the claim of debenture-holders being out of the way); and if so, they might equally, as I think, have given the contractors a charge upon the sale-moneys for that amount. There ought, I think, to be an order in the suit of the Imperial Mercantile Credit Association for a Teceiver of these particular moneys; and as it is desirable to save the expense of a receiver's salary, some officer of the company may perhaps act without salary, or the purchasers may have liberty to pay their purchasemoneys into court directly. This order is of course merely interlocutory, and subject to reconsideration at the hearing; and if, as suggested at the bar, the dealings between the company and its contractors should be taken as requiring further investigation, there will no doubt be found fitting means of doing this before the cause is disposed of. The costs of this motion also, both before the Vice-Chancellor and here, ought, I think, to be costs in the cause." sale of road not equivalent to, I. 221. of military post, puts it among mass of public lands, I. 231, n. 4. ABUSE, (See COMMON CARRIERS.) effect of, upon contract, I. 443. when inevitable or the act of God, II. 4. diminishing value of shares, on contract for their sale, II. 497, n. ACCOUNT, taken cognizance of in equity, I. 422, n. ordered after company completed work, I. 426. ACQUIESCENCE, in irregular issue of shares, estops from subsequent objection, I. 167. in informal organization, estops from objection, I. 186. in variation of location, also an estoppel, I. 201, n. 16. delay not always equivalent to, I. 225, 226. of railway company making estoppel in fact, I. 227, n. 11. of land-owner for forty years, I. 352. is waiver of stipulations in contract, I. 438, 439. and of right to injunction, II. 355–357. in an unconstitutional act, II. 485. of stockholders in an amalgamation, II. 656, n. 1, 658. (See RAILWAY INVESTMENTS.) power of company to bind by previous mortgage, II. 515 - 552, 679 ACTIONS, for calls, I. 185 - 192. would lie on indefinite subscription to stock, I. 161, 162, n. will not lie for damages sustained by use of railway, I. 293. for consequential damages. (See COMPENSATION, DAMAGES.) for defective construction by company, or defective works, I. 333, 334. at common law, when statute remedy fails, I. 339. barred by statute of limitations, I. 351, 352. notice prerequisite to, in England, II. 10. party interested may have action, II. 170. not estopped by act of consignee, II. 171. recovery by balee bars claim of general owner, II. 171. by carrier for damage to goods in his charge, II. 25. to determine rights of claimants, in stoppage in transitu, II. 140, 141. - where money paid into court, II. 232. brought by one stockholder for himself and others, II. 362. statute to cause survivorship of, constitutional, II. 444. whether it will lie on coupons, II. 605–607, n. 608. accrued right of, not affected by repeal of charter, II. 621, n. 8. to enforce liability of stockholders for corporate debts, II. 627, 636. of deceased husband against interests of wife, II. 211, 212, n. 9. for taking subscriptions, representations how far binding, I. 192. 506. but if employed to do the very act, company liable, I. 507. attempted distinction between acts on movable and immovable no distinction in regard to mode of employment, I. 508. one in control of work responsible, I. 509. liability for acts of agents and servants, I. 510–519. liability for torts of, I. 511; II. 9, n. 1. for wilful act within range of employment, I. 511. |