ANALYSIS OF TOBACCO GROWERS' ASSOCIATION 137 



ALL CONTRACTS ARE THE SAME THERE ARE NO FAVORITES 



21. It is expressly agreed that this instrument is one of a series substan- 

 tially identical in terms. All such instruments shall be deemed one contract 

 tor the purpose of binding the subscribers to the same extent as if all of the 

 subscribers had signed one such contract. 



Read, considered, and signed at , this 



day of , 1922. 



(Do not sign without reading) 



Grower 



Post-office address 



County 



Production in 1920 was pounds of type; acres 



MODIFIED ORDER FOR RECEIVERS 



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

 NORTH CAROLINA IN EQUITY 



I. B. Farmer, C. F. Lovelace, J. E. Gosney, J. H. Butcher, and J. F. Williams 

 et al. v. Tobacco Growers' Cooperative Association 



ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER 



This cause coming on to be heard before the Hon. Isaac M. Meekins, judge 

 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 

 and being heard on the 29th day of March, 1926, upon the bill filed in this 

 cause, at which hearing both plaintiffs and defendant were present in person, 

 and by attorneys, and after both sides had offered evidence of their respective 

 contentions, the court, on the 2d day of April, 1926, denied the motion for the 

 appointment of a receiver with leave to the plaintiffs to renew such motion 

 upon giving the requisite notice and with the further stipulation of counsel 

 that the evidence introduced at said hearing should be considered as offered 

 in any subsequent hearing that might be had, and the plaintiffs having re- 

 newed said motion for the appointment of a receiver and after giving due 

 notice of such motion, this cause came on again to be heard in the city of 

 Raleigh on the 1st day of June, 1926, and after hearing additional evidence 

 offered by both plaintiffs and defendant. 



It appearing to the court that, in view of the past numerous breaches of 

 contract by members of the association and recent demoralization among its 

 members, the association can not reasonably expect to receive from its members 

 under their delivery contracts a sufficient quantity of the 1926 tobacco to 

 justify incurring the expense of setting up a receiving system or to enable it 

 to market its receipts with reasonably satisfactory results, and it further 

 appearing that the orderly sale of the association tobacco and assets and the 

 orderly liquidation of its affairs are necessary and inevitable, and it further 

 appearing that there are outstanding numerous unsecured obligations of the 

 association which will become due in the immediate future and from time 

 to time and that the sale of tobacco under pressure by the association to raise 

 money to meet these obligations as they mature on the sale of association 

 tobacco or association equity in tobacco by creditors under a judgment would 

 entail a substantial reduction in the price to be reasonably expected from such 

 tobacco and great loss to the association and the members thereof and that 

 the liquidation of the affairs of the association and the further conduct of the 

 affairs of the association can be conducted most economically, most safely and 

 for the best interest of the association, its members, and its creditors by a re- 

 ceiver or receivers under the supervision and orders of this court, and it further 

 appearing that there have from time to time been made against certain of the 

 officers and directors of the association charges of misconduct or misman- 

 agement and that it is for the best interest of the association, its members, 

 the public, and for the general permanent future good of cooperative market- 

 ing that these charges be investigated by persons appointed by the court and 

 that such impartial persons appointed by the court be in position to report 

 back that such charges are unfounded or to request permission from the 

 court to take appropriate action: 



