Show WiWEAVER G REMOVED A New Receiver Named forBear for-Bear River Company CANNOT SERVE TWO MASTERS 0 1 Judgo Marshall In i ordering the Removal Re-moval Held That Weavers Hala tions to the Court and His Con tractoral Relations to Jarvis and Conklin Are Radically Inconsistent Inconsist-ent NQ Charge Made Affecting Integrity In-tegrity or Ability of Retiring Receiver Re-ceiver i I Judge Marshall In the Federal ourt yesterday morning removed William 1 C Weaver as receiver the Bear River Irrigation and Ogden Watenvorka company I com-pany and appointed Wllllam M Bradley Brad-ley In his stead 1 s Weaver was removed on llncs iden tical with those of his predecessors WH Ham Adams and Stanley J Conklln to wit that a servant cannot serve two masters at once OWNERSHIP OF PAPER The removal grew out or a number of notes and mortgages turned over to Weaver on hJs taking dTr igElo rgoCthe receivership re-ceivership of the defunct cornoratlnn These notes antf mortgages ir not listed as part of the assets of the company com-pany but as belonging Samuel 1 JL Jarvls and Roland RConklln There has be considerable contro versy as to whom these paper 1 be longed It being contended by some that they are the property the de funct corporation Judge Mahshnll In his opinion sums up the situation thus ltls not Intended by tills court to intimate any opinion vds to the > OWner slJip i qf these Holes and mortjnurci inac question has not been litigated f as yet nor are the facts Wef6re > thIJ court It Is sufficient that if 1 itiever does arise the rqcelver ot Uhecourl must not be on both sides of the quea tion > r MUST BE IMPARTIAL Weaver held the notes and mortgages and never transferred either Conklin or Jarvis any sums collected therefrom holding these subject to the final dispo sition of the court Despite this the court held that the duties of Weaveraa receiver and agont for Jarvis and Conk lln would conflict Judge Marshall In ruling held The receiver must bo Impartial to creditors who claim liens on the funds held by him as receiver Ifhels agent of one of the claimants In the custody of such funds the agency Is at variance with his duty to the court If a suit to annul the attempted transfer be necessary neces-sary It must be brought by the receiver re-ceiver r CONFLICTING DUTIES I Is leto bring suit against his own principal In administering the assets of the Insolvent corporation or Jn directing di-recting suits to be Instituted the court must be to a large extent guided the representations of the receiver by the facts which his investigations may disclose In this ease the duty of the receiver to make such Investigations and to disclose such facts is dis tinctly adverse to his duty to his principal prin-cipal l to protect the principals properly prop-erly In Ills hands as agent No man should b6 subject to such conflicting duties Impartiality and unprejudiced Judgment will not often flow from such a source NO CHARGE MADE It Is proper to say that no charge is made affecting the Integrity of tho receiver re-ceiver nor the ability with which he has acted as such It Is simply that his relations to Iho court and his contract oral relations to Jarvls and Conklln are radically Infconslslent so radically so as to debar him from longer acting as receiver The newlyappointed yesterday yester-day afternoon before Clerk Letchcr of the United States court filed the usual 25000 bond and assumed duties of office of-fice |