Realty Investment Co.'s Receiver That the Court would appoint a Receiver for the Really Investment Company ina day or two was made known by Judge Milton J. Helmick in the US. Court for China on Saturday, when the Yangtze Insurance Association, a British firm, petitioned the Court to appoint a Receiver on behalf of the debenture holders.
Mr, J. B, Davies, for the petitioners, said the Association entered into a written deed of trust" with the company on August 1, 1934, whereby the former agreed to act trustee for the holders of debentures to be issued by the latter, The company later issued $500,000 worth fof debentures secured on land. The company having failed to comply with the Association's request for a revaluation of the mortgaged pro perly and also for further security, the Association on October 3 ap: pointed Mr. F, N, Matthews as re~ ceiver of the mortgaged property, but the Company refused to give him Jcontrol of the property. All what the petitioners wanted was {0 see the Interests of the debenture holders secured, Mr..N. F. Allman, who had peti toned the court for the appointment of a receiver on behalf of certain creditors and stockholders, the directors, creditors and stockholders had no desire to impair the urityyof the debenture holders nor did they wish to tee or have any default in the payments due to debenture holders. Their desires was to preserve the property of the frm and to manage it to the best interest of debenture holders. He also pointed out that there had been no default in payments of principal of interest, and asked that the re fever should be subject to the Jurisdiction of the court.
With the appointment of a receiver by the Court, the Judge held the rights of the debenture holders: would be secured. A receiver could Jeasily administer the property of the company for the profit of the debenture holders, The answer fled on Saturday, by Mr. W. Owen Krause, the treasurer, stated that the Realty Investment Ca, admitted each and every allow tion contained in the bill of complal submitted its rights in the premise to the protection of the Court, and Joined in the prayer of the bil of complaint, A Case Involving $181,091
'A motion to submit additional evid-fence, in the form of a rescript from the 'Tientsin District Court, in. case of Liebert & Meyerhof v.' National City Bank, was granted by Judge Milton J. Helmick, on Monday, Oct.21, in the US. Coun for China, after protest by Mr, L, H. Kent, on behalf of Messrs, W. A. Koiigin and V. N. Seme-off, executors of the E. A. Batouleft Estate, Judgment is. pending in the US. Couirt in this case, the plaintive asking that the National City Bank be ordered to pay over to them certain money in order to satisfy a Judgment, Mr. N. F. Allman (on behalf of Me, B.C.' Eastham) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr, R. 7. Evans for the defendants.
The rescript from the Tientsin District Court, which Mr. Allman asked leave to enter, gave notice that, in the action with execution of Judgment in the case of Liebert Meyerhot against the late Mrs, Batouleff, for debt, the Court, some time ago, wrote a letter to the Chinese Bankers Association, Tientsin, Fequesting them to inves changing US. dollars into Chinese dollars in June, 1934. A' reply later was received stating that, on July 44, one U.S, dollar was equivalent t9 3.0769 Chinese. dollars, according to the result of the investiation, it followed that the amount 67,095.08 roubles, which, according to investigations made by the Chie nese Embassy in Moscow, was equlvalent to U.S. $58,885.33, was in turn equivalent "to Chinese "$181,001.97, Besides notifying the debtor to make payment for this sum, together with court costs, to the Tientsin Court for disposal, the notice also was issued to the creditor.
Mr. Evans said that his clients had objection to the motion. Mr. Kent, however, held that the evidence' was inadmissible, The case in the US. Court was heard in July, all evidence was taken, and it was ordered that briefs be submitted." It was Immaterial that, owing to pressure of business, judgment in. the cage had not been delivered.
With reference to the reseriot ite self, he wished to point out that It was by no means a final one. According to the practice of the Chinese Court, it was open to the party concerned to apply to have the matter Feconsidered by the President of the Executive Court, and, if his decision was unfavourable, 10 appeal against the decision of the President of the
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.