Show POINTED i judge marshall removes william 0 weaver as receiver ol 01 the bear river irrigation ogden waterworks Water works company tins morning nt salt lako city federal judge marshall entered an order removing wm C weaver as receiver of the bear river irrigation ogden waterworks Water works company and appointed in his place william M bradley a prominent attorney of salt lake city this is resultant from evidence which came up in the recently tried cases in which james dean john S cannon william carson john zimmerman jacob wheeler jr J M cody ana sarah J fowler are plaintiffs and alio bear river irrigation t ogden water works company arc defendants attorney G was attorney for the plaintiffs tho evidence in this case was at first taken before a referee and was submitted to the federal court in writing sir weaver the receiver was a witness in tim case and in his evidence as submitted he makes the assertion that ho is holding the notes mortgages etc of the plaintiffs in these cases as agents for jarvis conklin company and not aa receiver in his argument of the case on march ath attorney horn called the attention of the judge to this statement and commented on the business relations existing between jarvis conklin and mr weaver which precluded the possibility of mr weaver acting impartially to all parties as receiver judge marshall took the same view and stated that in consideration of these facts which were the same that caused him to discharge the former receivers ce adamson and conklin he would feel compelled to discharge mr weaker as receiver final action in the matter has however been deferred from time to until today when the above action was taken william M bradley the newly appointed receiver was a member of the law firm of bennett marshall brad icy of salt lake and is a prominent and well known attorney his bond is fixed at and it is understood he will qualify as soon as possible william C weaver who has just been deposed as receiver assumed the position october 31 1899 was seen by a standard reporter this afternoon and stated that he had nothing to eay aa to judge marchalls marshalls Mar action he had every respect for the judges wisdom and there was no reason for him to fuel bitter but said mr weaver 1 I cannot but feel that this will lead to complications when I 1 was appointed aa receiver to succeed mr adamson I 1 was entrusted with approximately in notes and mortgages given by resolution and bill of sale on may 11 1898 by the directors of the B R I 1 0 W W company to the north american trust company jakym conklin trustees to secure moneys advanced and to bo advanced mr adamson biad asked jarvia and conklin to be allowed to hold these notes simply as a convenience to the receiver in settling up these accounts under the law no one has a right to release those kotce and mortgages as paid except the receiver therefore I 1 hold there anist be joint action on the part of the agent of these notes and mortgages of the jarvis conklin co and the and to simplify matters Ada asked to bold the notes etc and then turned them over to us adamson acted on thi policy and was removed I 1 acted under the poli policy except that I 1 hold such money collected ai principal and interest and have transmitted nono to jarvis conkli n the removal ae receiver does not mean I 1 am to leave the city but I 1 will continue my and business here following an excerpt from tho decision made in tho suit first mentioned he defendant fen dant weaver wa examined as a witnessed ana testified that ho had possession of the notes and mortgages in question but that he held them as the agent of jarvia and auklin and not receiver on the hearing of the buus ahia evidence was calla to the attention of the court antt was suggested eliat the position of jarvia and conklin in the matter was inconsistent with the position of receiver at the request of receiver was permitted to be heard upon tho question iio testified that the notes and mortgagee were to him y william adamson id stanley rl conklin alie receivers preceding him in ilia trust not as a part of the assets of the insolvent corporation but a agent of jarah and conkin conk in under alic claimed transfer to b e held by him ns agent for them hold them but that ho had neer transmitted to jarvis aay portion of the sums fr athis fourcy four cc but head it suba cot disposition as the court might finally order the receiver impartial in relation to creditors who claim liens on the funds ladd by him as receiver if he is agent of one of the claimants in the custody of such fundis the agency is at variance with his auy to tho court it a suit to annul tho attempted transfer bo necessary must be brou uy the receiver aishe to bring it against his own principal admina ing the assets of tho insolvent corporation or in directing auita to be instituted 1 the court must be to a large extent guided by tho representations of the receiver by the facts which his investigations may disclose in this case the duty of tire receiver to make such investigations nd to disclose euch facts is distinctly adv cree to nia duty to his principal to protect the principals property in hrs hands as agent no man ahou ni be subjected to such conflicting duties impartiality and unprejudiced judgment will not often flow from such a source it is proper to say that no charge is made affecting the integrity of alio receiver nor alie ability which lie has acted as receiver it is simply eliat his relations to the court and his contractual tr relations to carvis and conklin are radically inconsistent so radically as to debar him from longer acting as receiver reference has been made to the re port presented to the court by william adamson and stanley L conklin the former receivers in which the fact that these notes and mortgages were held by them as agents of jarvis and conklin and not as receivers was distinctly stated this report was approved in the claim is made that the present receiver was thereby influenced at the time tills report was approved the present contention with reference to these notes and mortgages biad not been called to the attention of the court so far as ahn appeared the parties to the principal suit were the only parties interested these parties by a stipulation fileds in coat agreed that this report was correct and should be approved and it was approved on this stipulation without a or hearing thereafter the court removed william adamson and stanley L conklin as receivers because of relations jarvis and conklin and their situation with respect to tills transfer of the notes and mortgages A written opinion was filed in in substance the same position was taken as that here presented the receiver was then appointed it is difficult to understand how after this action with respect to his predecessors he could bo misled by alie approval of alic account in question it is not intended to intimate any opinion as to the ownership of the notes and mortgages that question lias not been litigated nor arc the facts before the court it is sufficient for this hearing that when if ever it docs arise the receiver of the court must not be on both eides of it an order will be made removing wm C weaver as receiver to take effect upon the appointment ai qualification of his successor to whom lie will deliver all the moneys books property and effects of the defendant corporation in his hand as receiver 1 |