American Bridge Company v. Heidelbach

Citation24 L.Ed. 144,94 U.S. 798
PartiesAMERICAN BRIDGE COMPANY v. HEIDELBACH
Decision Date01 October 1876
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Wallace Pratt and Mr. C. B. Lawrence for the appellant, and by Mr. R. Crozier, contra.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.

The controversy in this case has arisen out of a mortgage executed by the Kansas and Missouri Bridge Company to the appellees, as trustees, to secure the payment of the principal and interest of certain bonds issued by the mortgagor and described in the mortgage.

Besides the bridge of the company, the mortgage included 'the rents, issues, and profits of said bridge, as far as the same are not required to pay the necessary expenses of keeping in repair and operating said bridge, which rents, issues, and profits,' it was declared, 'are hereby pledged to the payment of said interest as it matures, and to the establishment of a sinking fund for the redemption and payment of the principal of said bonds,' &c. It was further provided, that, if the interest were in default for six months, the trustees, upon the written request of the holders of one-half of the outstanding bonds, might take possession of the mortgaged premises, manage and operate the bridge, and receive and collect all rents and claims due and to beo me due to the company.

The interest upon the bonds being in default, the trustees, on the 25th of November, 1874, filed their bill, wherein, among other things, they set forth that there was in the hands of the company a certain amount of money which ought to be applied upon the mortgage and certain claims due to the company, the proceeds of which ought to be applied in like manner. The bill prayed accordingly.

The appellant, the American Bridge Company, held a judgment for $15,435.88 and costs against the Kansas and Missouri Bridge Company, upon which an execution had been returned nulla bona. On the 11th of December, 1874, the judgment creditor filed a bill claiming priority of payment out of the money and the proceeds of the claim above mentioned. It appears that there is a sufficient fund to meet the demand awaiting below the termination of this litigation.

It cannot be denied that the return of the execution, the filing of the bill, and the service of process, gave the judgment creditor a lien upon the fund in question which must prevail, unless...

To continue reading

Request your trial
64 cases
  • Atlantic Trust Co. v. Dana
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 21, 1903
    ... ... The ... Topeka Water Supply Company, through an ordinance of the city ... of Topeka, obtained the privilege ... Co., 24 C.C.A. 511, 79 F. 227; Veatch v. American ... Loan & Trust Co., 25 C.C.A. 39, 79 F. 471; ... Farmers' Loan & ... 157; Miller v ... Sherry, 2 Wall. 249, 17 L.Ed. 827; American Bridge ... Co. v. Heidelbach, 94 U.S. 798, 800, 24 L.Ed. 144; ... Young v ... ...
  • Investors Syndicate v. Smith
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • July 12, 1939
    ...effective only when the mortgagee either obtains possession, or has a receiver appointed to collect the rents. American Bridge Co. v. Heidelbach, 94 U.S. 798, 800, 24 L.Ed. 144; Teal v. Walker, supra, 111 U.S. at page 248, 4 S.Ct. 420, 28 L.Ed. 415; Freedman's Saving & Trust Co. v. Shepherd......
  • Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N.W.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • November 21, 1892
    ...the income and earnings belong to the 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. ......
  • Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Brooklyn Rapid Transit Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 10, 1923
    ... ... of the defendant Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company, dated July ... 1, 1902, and known as first refunding gold mortgage, to ... 341, 43 ... L.Ed. 628; Big Creek Gap C. & I. Co. v. American Loan & ... T. Co., 127 F. 625, 62 C.C.A. 351. Creditors of B.R.T., ... Co., 91 U.S. 603, 23 L.Ed ... 405; American Bridge Co. v. Heidelbach, 94 U.S. 798; 24 L.Ed ... 144; Sage v. Memphis & ... ...
  • 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