Fosdick v. Schall

Citation25 L.Ed. 339,99 U.S. 235
PartiesFOSDICK v. SCHALL
Decision Date01 October 1878
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Chicago, Danville, and Vincennes Railroad Company, an Illinois corporation, on the 10th of March, 1869, executed a mortgage to William R. Fosdick and James D. Fish, trustees to secure an issue of $2,500,000 of bonds. This mortgage covered all the franchises, issues, and profits of the company, and all the property it then owned or possessed, or might thereafter acquire, either in law or equity. Provision was made to the effect that, in case of default in the payment of interest on the bonds continuing for six months, the trustees in the mortgage, on demand of the holders of at least one-half the bonds then outstanding and unpaid, might take possession of all the mortgaged property, together with all the books, records, papers, accounts, and money of the company, and enter into the management and control thereof, paying all the expenses of taking, holding, managing, and operating the property from the income and profits thereof, or, if the property should be sold, from the sale thereof. The property might be sold as an entirety, and the proceeds, after deducting the expenses of sale, applied to the payment of the interest and principal of the bonds.

On the 12th of March, 1872, a second mortgage was executed to the same trustees, to secure a further issue of bonds to the amount of $1,500,000.

On the 1st of February, 1873, after both these mortgages were executed, the railroad company and Michael Schall entered into a contract in writing, a copy of which is as follows:——

'NEW YORK, Feb 1, 1873.

'Sold this day for account of Mr. Michael Schall, of York, Penn.,

'To the Chicago, Danville, and Vincennes Railroad Co.

'Office 38 Pine Street, New York:

'Two hundred (200) eight-wheel gondola coal-cars, as per specifications and agreement made by J. E. Young, and herewith attached.

'Price, delivered on the track at Pittsburg, at adpot of P. C. & St. L. R. R., seven hundred dollars per car. Cars to remain the property of Michael Schall until paid for.

'Delivery to commence, and cars to be taken, on or before March 1, and at least twenty-five (25) cars in each week thereafter until all are delivered, the seller having the option of increasing the number of cars to be delivered per week, if desired.

'Settlement to be made on delivery of each twenty-five (25) cars or more, at the opinion of sellers, with the notes of the Chicago, Danville, and Vincennes Railroad Company, payable in the city of New York, and adding interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. The first notes are to be drawn at sixty days from date of delivery, and for twenty (20) dollars on each car, and the balance for a like amount and payable monthly thereafter.

'Cars to be lettered and numbered as per directions of Mr. Young.

'Invoice and shipping receipts to be sent to the railroad company's office, No 38 Pine Street, New York.

'It is understood the sellers shall not be responsible for the acts of Providence, strikes of workmen, or other causes beyond their control, which may retard and delay the manufacturing and delivery of the said cars as above stated.

'Shipping receipts to be evidence of delivery.

'(Signed) MICHAEL SCHALL.

'I hereby accept the above proposition for the R. R. Co.

'(Signed) J. E. YOUNG, Gen. Manager.'

Under this contract two hundred and twenty-five cars were delivered into the possession of the railroad company by Schall, numbered from 0141 to 0365, both inclusive, and lettered, 'This car is the property of Michael Schall, York, Pa.' Notes were executed by the company, according to agreement, for the price of the cars as they were delivered. Of these notes $44,323.43 have been paid by the company, and $110,334.04 are outstanding. The cars were used by the company in the usual course of business.

On the 22d of February, 1875, Stephen Osgood, who held $9,000 of the bonds secured by the mortgage of 1869, and $2,000 of those secured by that of 1872, filed a bill in chancery in the Circuit Court of Will County, Illinois, against the railroad company and Fosdick and Fish, trustees, with others, for a foreclosure of the two mortgages and a sale of the mortgaged property for the benefit of the bondholders, according to their respective priorities; and on the same day the court appointed Henry B. Hammond and John B. Brown receivers in the cause, with authority to take the moneys, property, and effects of the company into their possession, and run and operate the railroad under the orders of the court until discharged. In the order making the appointment it was specially provided that out of the moneys which should come into the hands of the receivers by reason of the operation of the road, the collection of debts or the sale of the property, they should pay without further order as to particular demands——

1. The necessary current expenses of carrying out the duties of the trust;

2. 'All debts now [then] due and owing by said railroad company for labor and services rendered in operating the railroad within the [then] last three months, and all indebtedness for engines, iron, wood, supplies, cars, or other property purchased within said period of three months for the use of the company;'

3. Taxes, insurance, and charges of litigation; and,

4. Liabilities for animals killed by engines or cars upon the line of the road.

On the 5th of May, 1875, the cause was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois on the application of Fosdick and Fish, trustees, two of the defendants, and on the 17th of the same month the receivers appointed by the State court filed in the Circuit Court an account of their receivership for the months of February, March, and April.

On the 20th of May, Fosdick and Fish, as trustees, filed in the same Circuit Court of the United States their bill against the railroad company and certain other defendants, for the foreclosure of the two mortgages of which they were trustees; and on the same day an order was entered in that court appointing Adna Anderson receiver, with authority to take possession of all the books, papers, vouchers, and evidence of indebtedness, moneys, and assets of the company, and all other effects of every kind, name, and nature which belonged to the company, or were held for its use and benefit, or in which it had any beneficial interest. He was also authorized to run, operate, and manage the road and pay the expenses thereof, and manage and control all the property and affairs of the company. Authority was also given him to use the moneys of the company for any and all the purposes specified in the order, and he was required, as speedily as possible, to examine into the condition of the property and assets of the company, its contracts, leases, running arrangements, its business affairs, and take an inventory of its movable property and make a schedule of its floating indebtedness for labor and supplies, and report the same, as soon as might be, with his recommendation as to the proper disposition of the same and payment thereof. Under this order Anderson took possession of the property, and on the 11th of June the receivers appointed by the State court filed their final accounts, and asked to be discharged from their trust.

The cars delivered under the Schall contract were in use by the company when the receivers appointed by the State court took possession. Those receivers also continued to use the cars during all the time they operated the road, and Anderson took the possession of them when he entered upon his receivership. On the 27th of November, 1875, Anderson having ascertained what the claim of Schall was, and finding that they were necessary for the use of the road, entered into an arrangement with him, subject to the approval of the court, by which they were valued at $420 each; and it was agreed that Schall should be paid seven dollars a month for each car as rent. The aggregate of payments at this rate for five years would equal the value of the cars; and it was further agreed that if the rent was paid promptly, and in addition an amount which would be equal to interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on the deferred instalments, the cars should, at the end of that time, become the property of the company.

On the 19th of July, 1875, the Circuit Court denied a motion of Osgood to consolidate his suit removed from the State court with that of Fosdick and Fish, but made an order allowing him and his associates to intervene in the latter suit for the protection of their respective interests, upon taking the necessary steps therefor. Accordingly, on the 6th of January, 1876, Stephen Osgood, Frederick W. Huidekoper, Thomas W. Shannon, John M. Dennison, George W. Gill, Alanson A. Sumner, Chandler Robbins, and William T. Hickok, owners and holders of a large amount of bonds secured by the several mortgages which were in the process of foreclosure, filed, with the permission of the court, their petition of intervention.

On the 27th of January, 1876, Schall filed an intervening petition, in which, after setting forth the facts of his claim substantially as they have already been given, and averring that he had been paid at the rate of seven dollars a month as rent during all the time the cars had been in use by the present receiver, he asked that the balance, his due, might be paid him out of any funds to the credit of the cause not otherwise appropriated, and that the cars might be returned to him.

Fosdick and Fish and the intervening bondholders answered this petition, claiming that the title of the cars had passed to the company under its contract with Schall, and that consequently the lien of the mortgages had attached to the cars as after-acquired property. They denied his right to payment for the cars out of the income of the road or out of the proceeds...

To continue reading

Request your trial
391 cases
  • Fordyce v. Omaha, Kansas City & E.R.R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • April 11, 1906
    ...Ry. Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., cited heretofore, which casts any doubt upon this restoration doctrine as declared in Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235, 25 L.Ed. 339, Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U.S. 776, 783, 4 Sup.Ct. 675, 28 596, and in St. Louis, A. & T.H.R. Co. v. Cleveland, C., C. & I.R. Co., 1......
  • Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Doud
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 21, 1900
    ...to it. First, it overlooks the vital distinction between a debt for construction and one for operating expenses. The doctrine of Fosdick v. Schall is applicable wholly to latter class of liabilities. In the case of Cowdrey v. Railroad Co., 93 U.S. 352, 23 L.Ed. 950, it was settled that the ......
  • Matter of Penn Central Transp. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • March 17, 1978
    ...This results almost as a matter of necessity from the peculiar circumstances which surround such litigation. Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235, 252, 25 L.Ed. 339 (1878). The Plan now before the Court incorporates a host of compromises of various kinds. They include actual compromise settlement......
  • Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N.W.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • November 21, 1892
    ...company, and any judgment creditor may subject the same to the payment of his judgment. Bridge Co. v. Heidelbach, 94 U.S. 798; Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235, 253; Dow Railroad Co., 124 U.S. 652, 8 S.Ct. 673; Sage v. Railroad Co., 125 U.S. 361, 8 S.Ct. 887. Under the circumstances of the ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Not Just Anna Nicole Smith: Cleavage in Bankruptcy
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal No. 31-1, November 2014
    • Invalid date
    ...Co., 22 F. 471, 474 (C.C.E.D. Mo. 1884)).66. Turner, 24 F. Cas. at 367 ("desirable to obtain from the [S]upreme [C]ourt a decision").67. 99 U.S. 235 (1879).68. Id. at 251-52.69. Id. 70. Id.71. In re Bos. & Me. Corp., 634 F.2d 1359, 1368 (1st Cir. 1980) (discussing Fosdick, 99 U.S. at 235). ......
1 provisions
  • 11 U.S.C. § 901 Applicability of Other Sections of This Title
    • United States
    • US Code 2019 Edition Title 11. Bankruptcy Chapter 9. Adjustment of Debts of a Municipality Subchapter I. General Provisions
    • January 1, 2019
    ...is commenced, is deleted from the statute, but may be within the court's equitable power to award, under the case of Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235 (1878) [25 L.Ed. 339]. Leaving the provision to the courts permits greater flexibility, as under railroad cases, than an absolute three-month r......

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