Mobile & O.R. Co. v. Nicholas
Decision Date | 04 April 1893 |
Citation | 98 Ala. 92,12 So. 723 |
Parties | MOBILE & O. R. CO. ET AL. v. NICHOLAS ET AL. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from chancery court, Mobile county; W. H. Tayloe, Chancellor.
Bill by John S. Nicholas and others against the Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company and others for an injunction and other relief. Complainants had decree, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
E. L Russell, R. P. Deshon, R. C. Beckett, Hannis Taylor, E. J Phelps, and F. W. Whitridge, for appellants.
Tompkins & Troy, Gaylord B. Clark, Sullivan & Cromwell, W. J. Curtis and Alfred Jaretzki, for appellees.
The Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company having made default in the payment of coupons attached to its several bonds secured by mortgages, proceedings were instituted in the federal court for the southern district of Alabama, and other courts, which resulted in decrees of foreclosure and orders of sale of the property conveyed by the several mortgages or deeds of trust. In addition to the bonded indebtedness of the railroad company, secured by mortgage, upon which the foreclosure decrees were rendered, there was a large unsecured indebtedness. The total indebtedness largely exceeded the value of the entire railroad property. The railroad company at this time was in the hands of a receiver. Under these conditions an agreement was entered into dated October 1 1876, "between the Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company, of the first part, and the various other parties whose names are subscribed hereto, being creditors of said company, some holding security as hereinafter specified, and others unsecured, each subscriber for himself, and neither for the other, parties of the second part, Wm. H. Hays, of the city of New York, and William S. Pierson of Windsor, state of Connecticut, and T. Haskins Dupuy, of Philadelphia, parties of the third part." The agreement, which is made Exhibit A to the bill, after stating the embarrassed condition of the railroad company, and referring to the bonded creditors of the same, secured by mortgages, the decrees of foreclosure and judgment, and all other creditors proceeds as follows: "And the undersigned, holders of claims of the various classes against said company, as well as these specified in the said schedule hereto annexed, as judgment creditors and unsecured creditors, have agreed to compromise and compound with said company, upon the said company's issuing new securities for all the said indebtedness, in the manner hereinafter agreed upon, to the end that, if practicable, said foreclosure suits may be discontinued, and the property affected thereby restored to the custody and control of the said company under the conditions of this agreement, and the stipulations accompanying the same." The agreement then provides for the issue of $7,000,000 of first mortgage bonds, and then for the issue of $8,650,000 of debentures, of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th series.
The main questions involved in the present litigation, to be first considered, are in respect to the debentures. This plan of adjustment and reorganization was made to depend upon the action of the stockholders; and the bill shows, and it is admitted in argument, that, of the 53,206 shares of the capital stock of the railroad company, 45,454 shares of the capital stock assented to the compromise and adjustment, and executed an irrevocable power of attorney, by which their stock should be voted, until the payment or extinguishment of the debentures as expressed on their face and in the mortgage to secure them, and provision for their payment. All the stockholders who acceded to the terms of compromise and adjustment are denominated "assenting stockholders." Complainants belong to this class. The agreement for the compromise and readjustment is divided into sections, and stated in full as Exhibit A to the bill. We will here state such sections as are most pertinent to the issues presented by the pleadings: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sommers v. Apalachicola Northern R. Co.
...... them either by contract with the complainants or the. corporations nor as officers or stockholders of the two. corporations; by dishonest ... properties. . . The. case of Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Nicholas, 98 Ala. 92,. 12 So. 723, was one where a voting trust was sustained, ......
-
Bankers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss, 6 Div. 511.
......173, 145 So. 450. . . The. contract, among other things, provided for action or. proceedings for dissolution of the corporation and. liquidation of the corporate business, for ... agreement or means to accomplish the end contemplated is of. equal importance . Mobile & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Nicholas, 98 Ala. 92, 12 So. 723; Moses v. Scott, 84 Ala. 608, 4 So. ......
-
Corey v. Wadsworth
...... agreement with the Exchange Bank of Decatur, by which they. bound themselves, as sureties or grantors of the said Decatur. Building Supply Company, for the payment to the bank of such. ...A. corporation is a collective body, composed of different. persons. Railroad Co. v. Nicholas, 98 Ala. 124, 12. So. 723; Mor. Priv. Corp. § 227. Whatever is of benefit to. the corporation, ......
-
People ex rel. Arkansas Valley Sugar Beet & Irrigated Land Co. v. Burke
...... southeastern Colorado. Neither corporation is the builder or. original owner of its present system, having obtained the. same by purchase or under a ... Utah 434, 100 P. 927; Boyer v. Nesbitt, 227 Pa. 398, 76 A. 103, 136 Am.St.Rep. 890; Mobile & O. R. Co. v. Nicholas, 98. Ala. 92, 12 So. 723; Brightman v. Bates, 175 Mass. 105, 55. N.E. ......