TATLOB V. PEILADBIiFHIA ae BBADINO B. 00. 377 �that is equitable or legal. There is no conflict of jurisdic- tion, because no etate court or officer bas taken possession of anything. The question is merely one of title. A bill in equity will lie, because the complainant company bas, or might have, a right to require the sbares to be transferred to it. As values are at present, it would be more just to enter a decree for the debt due the complaiuants, and inter- est, wbicb would leave a considerable value for the defend- ant bank if the present market price bolds. I understood counsel to say that the precise form of the decree could prob- ably be agreed on. �Decree for the complainants. ���Taylob V. The PhiIiAdelphia & Ebading Eailroad Co.* �Farmers' & Mechanics' Nat. Bank ov Philadelphia v. The s AME. �{Circuit Court, B. D. Pennsylvania. August 6, 1880.) �1. Eailhoad—Recbivbrs— Application of Incoms to Claius pob �Labob ANn Material FuRNiaRED Befobe Foeeclosdeb Procebd- �IHOS. �Where the holders of raiiroad mortgage bonds obtain the appoint- ment of receivers pending prooeedings for f oreolosure, the court will apply the net income, in its discretion, to .the payment of the em- ployes and of the material men, who have, prior to the appointment of the receivers, furnished the labor, materiftls, and supplies neces- sary for the operation of the road, �2. Samb — Method of Patmbnt — RbCkivbrs' Cbrtificates. �As the fund is produced by the adniinistration of the court, it may be distributed, at the discretion of the court, in such manner as not to embarrass the receivers, and prior claims for labor and materials may be paid by certiflcates, bearing interest, and payable out of any funds applicable thereto, at such dates as may be afterwards flxed by the receivera. �Tbis was an application by receivers for authority to pay claims for labor, material, etc., furnished for the operation of �*Reported by Frank P. Prichard, Esq., of the Philadelphia bar. ��� �
