Central Railroad Banking Co of Georgia v. Pettus

Decision Date05 January 1885
Citation113 U.S. 116,5 S.Ct. 387,28 L.Ed. 915
PartiesCENTRAL RAILROAD & BANKING CO. OF GEORGIA and another v. PETTUS and another, Partners, etc
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of the United States for the Middle district of Alabama in favor of the appellees, Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, adjudging them entitled to the sum of $35,161.21, and interest thereon at 8 per cent. per annum from March 7, 1881, with lien, to secure its payment, upon the road-bed, depots, side tracks, turnouts, trestles, and bridges owned and used by the appellants, corporations of the state of Georgia, in operating the railroad formerly belonging to the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, and which extends from Montgomery to West Point, with a branch from Opelika to Columbus. This property was directed to be exposed to sale, unless, within a given time, the said amount was paid. This suit is the outgrowth of certain litigation in the courts of Alabama, relating to the before-mentioned and other railroad property, in which the appellants are interested. A statement of its history is necessary to a clear understanding of the questions now presented for determination.

On the first of September, 1870, the Western Railroad Company, an Alabama corporation, purchased and took possession of the railroad (main line and branch) and all other property of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company; one of the terms and conditions of such purchase being, as was claimed, that the former company assumed the payment of all outstanding debts and obligations of the latter, and agreed to issue its capital stock, dollar for dollar, in exchange for stock of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company outstanding. It was a part of that arrangement that the lastnamed company should, as it subsequently did, surrender its charter to the state. When this purchase was made, there were, upon the franchises and property of the latter company, two mortgages to secure bonds proposed to be issued: one, June 1866, for $750,000, bonds for the whole of which were issued; the other, May 1, 1868, for $400,000, bonds for $45,000 of which were issued. It had, also, outstanding bonds issued in 1866 and 1867, not secured by mortgage, or otherwise. The Western Railroad Company had, at the time of its purchase, a mortgage, of date September 15, 1868, upon its own property and franchises, to secure $600,000 of bonds then, or at some subsequent period, guarantied by the present appellants.

On the fifteenth of September, 1870, that company executed to Morris and Lowery, trustees, a mortgage upon its property and franchises, (including the property transferred to it by the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company,) to secure the payment of $1,200,000 of bonds, thereafter to be issued, and of which a large amount was issued; and their payment was also guarantied by the appellants. Subsequently, on March 31, 1874, those trustees commenced a suit in the chancery court of Montgomery county, Alabama, against the Western Railroad Company; the present appellants; the surviving trustees in the mortgages executed by the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company; and others. Its object was to procure a sale of the property of the former company, including that purchased from the latter company. A final decree was passed December 18, 1874, ordering a sale, subject, however, to a lien, in respect of the property formerly owned by the lastnamed company, in favor of the holders of its mortgage bonds, according to their respective priorities; and, in respect of the property of the Western Railroad Company, to a lien in favor of the holders of bonds secured by its mortgage of September 15, 1868. The sale was had, the present appellants becoming the purchasers.

On the eighth of May, 1875, Branch, Sons & Co., H. P. Hoadely, and C. S. Plank, holding bonds of the (old) Montgomery- & West Point Railroad Company not secured by mortgage, through Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, their solicitors, exhibited a bill in equity in the same court against the present appellants, the Western Railroad Company, the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company, and others. They sued for themselves as well as for all other creditors of the last-named company who should come in and make themselves complainants and contribute to the expenses of the suit. Such proceedings were had—the Georgia corporations appearing and making defense—that on the first day of May, 1877, a final decree was entered, by which it was, among other things, adjudged that 'the unsecured creditors of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company, to which class complainants belong, have a lien' upon the property transferred by it to the Western Railroad Company; that such lien was subordinate to those for the bonds issued under the several mortgages executed by the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company that were outstanding and unpaid, but superior to that of the mortgage executed by the Western Railroad Company after its said purchase, so far as the property of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company was covered by that mortgage; and that the property of all kinds, belonging to the latter company, be sold to satisfy its debts according to priority.

The cause was referred to a register to ascertain and report the amounts due to the complainants and to such other unsecured creditors of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company as should prove their claims pursuant to the decree; also the amounts due to holders of bonds issued under its several mortgages. Upon appeal by the two Georgia corporations to the supreme court of Alabama, that decree was affirmed. The register thereafter proceeded with its execution. Numerous parties, including the complainants, appeared before him and had their claims registered, the creditors in each instance retaining in their own custody the evidence of their respective demands. The aggregate amount of such claims was very large.

On the fifteenth of April, 1879, the register not having made his report upon these claims, Pettus & Dawson and Watts & Sons, by leave of the court, filed in the cause their joint petition, alleging in substance that as solicitors specially employed by the complainants, Branch, Sons & Co., Hoadley, and Plank, they prepared and filed the original bill, as well in behalf of themselves as of all other unsecured creditors of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company who should come in and contribute to the expenses of the suit; conducted the proceedings to a final decree; represented the same interests in the supreme court of Alabama; that their relations to the suit were well known to the Georgia corporations during the whole period of the litigation; that pending the reference before the register, after the rights of complainants and all creditors of the same class had been established by the final decree, those corporations made a secret arrangement with their immediate clients, whereby the claims of the latter were paid in full, principal and interest, and whereby, also, Branch, Sons & Co., and their co-complainants, agreed to withhold from their solicitors the fact of such settlement until the Georgia corporations could buy or settle all other claims of the unsecured creditors of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company; that 'afterwards said two Georgia companies, defendants to this suit, did buy up or settle the other claims, which had been filed in the cause, under said decree,' and, 'either jointly or separately, thereby acquired possession and control of said claims so filed;' that they also purchased and settled a large amount of claims, which might have been, but were not, filed with the register; that, at the time of such purchase, said Georgia corporations had actual notice that petitioners, as solicitors in that suit, claimed reasonable compensation for such services as they rendered in behalf of the unsecured creditors of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company (other than complainants) who should come in and take the benefit of the final decree, and also the benefit of any lien upon said property that should be declared in favor of those creditors; and that in equity they 'were the assignees of a part of each claim as filed to the amount of the reasonable value of the services rendered in said cause by petitioners for the benefit of each holder and owner of such claims respectively.' The prayer of the petition was that an account be taken of the sums thus due to them as solicitors representing the unsecured creditors of the Montgomery & West Point Railroad Company (except the complainants and other named creditors with whom they had special contracts for fees) who received the benefit of their services; that they be declared to have a lien for the value of such services on all the property of that company which had come into the possession of the Georgia corporations; and that so much of it as may be necessary for that purpose be sold to meet the amounts due them.

The register reported, on the twenty-second of April, 1879, that there were then no bonds or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
403 cases
  • Edmonds v. US, Civ. A. No. 75-1624-8
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • March 24, 1987
    ...the early cases such as Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. (15 Otto) 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1882), and Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 5 S.Ct. 387, 28 L.Ed. 915 (1885). As the Supreme Court summarized the doctrine five years "... this Court has recognized consistently that......
  • Shimman v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • October 1, 1984
    ...plaintiff whose suit creates, enlarges, or protects a fund shared by members of a class. See, e.g., Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 5 S.Ct. 387, 28 L.Ed. 915 (1885); Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 15 Otto 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157 In M......
  • City and County of San Francisco v. Sweet, S045960
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • December 18, 1995
    ...or directly from the other parties enjoying the benefit. That rule has been consistently followed. Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 5 S.Ct. 387, 28 L.Ed. 915 (1885); Harrison v. Perea, 168 U.S. 311, 325-326, 18 S.Ct. 129, 134-35, 42 L.Ed. 478 (1897); United States v. ......
  • Stewart v. Utah Public Service Com'n, 910405
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 29, 1994
    ...a "common fund," the economic benefit of which is shared by all members of the class. See, e.g., Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 5 S.Ct. 387, 28 L.Ed. 915 (1885); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 26 L.Ed. 1157 (1881).412 U.S. at 6 n. 7, 93 S.Ct. at 1947 n. 7. As ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 firm's commentaries
  • Supreme Court Declines To Hear Challenge To Validity Of Incentive Awards
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 8, 2023
    ...to pay the trustee's attorneys but not for the trustee's own time and private personal expenses. See Centr. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882). The Eleventh Circuit panel analogized the named plaintiff in a class action to the trust......
  • Supreme Court declines to hear challenge to constitutionality of incentive awards
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • April 19, 2023
    ...to pay the trustee’s attorneys but not for the trustee’s own time and private personal expenses. See Centr. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882). The Eleventh Circuit panel analogized the named plaintiff in a class action to the trust......
  • Eleventh Circuit Denies En Banc Request, Confirms Holding that Class Action Incentive Payments are Improper
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • August 15, 2022
    ...could not recover an incentive award under Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1882), and Central Railroad & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885). See Johnson v. NPAS Sols., LLC, 975 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2020). The panel held that the incentive award “constitute[d] a salary, a ......
  • Supreme Court Denies Cert on Incentive Awards
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • May 9, 2023
    ...in class settlements. Id. at 1255 (citing Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527 (1881), and Cent. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116 (1885). Although the Eleventh Circuit was the first federal appellate court to bar these awards in all circumstances, a recent Second Circuit decision a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Fee-Shifting in Bankruptcy.
    • United States
    • American Bankruptcy Law Journal Vol. 95 No. 4, December 2021
    • December 22, 2021
    ...where a plaintiff traced or created a common fund for the benefit of others as well as himself. Cen. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U. S. 116 (1885); Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U. S. 527 (1881). Sprague itself involved a variation of the common fund situation where, although the plai......
  • Class Action Law in Georgia: Emerging Trends in Litigation, Certification, and Settlement - Jeffrey G. Casurella and John R. Bevis
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 49-1, September 1997
    • Invalid date
    ...NEWBERG & COMTE, supra note 7, Sec. 11.29, at 11-61 to 11-62. 120. Camden I, 946 F.2d at 771 (citing Central R.R. & Banking Co. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 127-28 (1985)). This is often ignored by the critics. 121. O.C.G.A. Sec. 13-6-11 (1982 & Supp. 1997); See also Camden I, 946 F.2d at 771; ......
  • Common Benefit Fees in Multidistrict Litigation
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 74-2, January 2014
    • January 1, 2014
    ...561 (1986). 20. See, e.g. , Internal Imp. Fund Trs. v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 537–38 (1881); Cent. R.R. & Banking Co. of Ga. v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 127–28 (1885). 2014] COMMON BENEFIT FEES IN MDL 375 purpose of paying reasonable attorneys’ fees. The fund is created by taxing persons oth......
  • Back to the Future: Use of Percentage Fee Arrangements in Common Fund Litigation
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 12-01, September 1988
    • Invalid date
    ...could be made by counsel (as opposed to the client who had actually incurred the fees). Central R.R. & Banking Co. of Georgia v. Pettus, 113 U.S. 116, 124-25 (1885). In Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472 (1980), the Court held that the available "fund" included monies of unlocated class......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT