Cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, during the latter part of the Austin term, 1884, and the Tyler term, 1884. Volume 62. Page: 52

52 YAN v. YS. s. [Austin Term,
Opinion of the court.
the receiver had not been settled; that the mortgaged property had
been sold; but it does not show that the purchase money therefor
had been paid, or in any manner brought within the actual control
of the receiver or of the court that appointed him. This action
was pending, and to it the receiver was a party. Before surrendering
his trust it was proper that he should have in some way
secured the payment of such debts as existed against the receivership;
to have accomplished this purpose, the circuit court might
have required the purchase money, so far as necessary for that purpose,
to be paid into court to await subsequent disposition, or, in default
of the payment of the purchase money, might have held the
property sold, still subject to its jurisdiction and sale for the satisfaction
of all such claims as might be established against it.
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. C. R. R. Co., 2 McC., 181.
The railway evidently desired to get full possession of the prop.
erty; the receiver not having been discharged from his trust by the
court which appointed him, desired in some way to be protected
against debts or claims properly chargeable against the receivership.
He evidently conceived that this could be done by the company
assuming such debts as the money or property in his hands as re
ceiver was liable for; and, therefore, for the purpose of carrying oul
the intention and desire of both parties, the resolution of Novembel
17, 18.79, was passed. We must presume, in the absence of proof t(
the contrary, that the bond was executed in accordance with th(
resolution; but whether so or not, if the purposes of the resolution
were carried out, then the company is as fully bound as though th(
bond had been executed. That Ryan or any other person, whos(
claim or debt was contemplated by the resolution, may have the
contract evidenced by the resolution inure to his benefit we have
no doubt.
The resolution evidently was intended to apply to all liabilities o
Hays, whether incurred personally or as receiver. Such is the onl2
legitimate construction to be placed on the language used in it.
We are therefore of the opinion, if Ryan had a claim which thi
United States circuit court would or ought to have directed to bi
paid out of any money or property which came into the hands o
the rece-jer, that then the railway company is, by virtue of the con
tract with the receiver, liable to pay such debt.
That a claim for injuries received by Ryan while the road wa
operated by the receiver, if properly established, was entitled t,
payment out of the current receipts of the road, we have no doubt
and if the current receipts were used for the betterment of th