Bailey v. Pittsb. Coal R. Co.

• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM:
• Citation: Bailey v. Coal Railroad Co., 139 Pa. 213, 21 A. 72 (Pa. 1891)
• Decision Date: 05 January 1891
• Docket Number: 159
• Parties: W. F. BAILEY v. PITTSB. COAL R. CO. ET AL

139 Pa. 213

W. F. BAILEY v. PITTSB. COAL R. CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued November 4, 1890.

Decided January 5, 1891.

Before PAXSON, C. J., STERRETT, GREEN, CLARK, WILLIAMS, McCOLLUM and MITCHELL, JJ.

APPEAL BY WM. VANKIRK ET AL. FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.

No. 159 October Term 1890, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 488 September Term 1886, C. P. No. 1, in Equity.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Mr. John S. Ferguson, for the appellants.

Admitting that the capital stock of a corporation is a trust fund for the benefit of all its creditors in the event of insolvency: Lane's App., 105 Pa. 49, counsel denied the right and necessity of a court of equity to undertake the determination of a disputed claim, citing North Penna. Coal Co. v. Snowden, 42 Pa. 488. In no event could the decree here be sustained, as no account had been taken of the amount of the debts of the corporation: Bell's App., 115 Pa. 88.

Mr. C. S. Fetterman, for the appellees.

Counsel cited: Lane's App., 105 Pa. 49; Bell's App., 115 Pa. 88.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is entitled as though it had been taken by the Pittsburgh Coal Railroad Company. Such is not the fact, however. The appeal was entered by William Vankirk, R. B. Brown, John F. Dravo, and W. H. Aldred, four of the defendants below.

Lane's App., 105 Pa. 49, and Bell's App., 115 Pa. 88, are authority that such a bill can be maintained. The record is voluminous, and consists principally of questions of fact. We must assume that the learned master has decided these correctly, inasmuch as he is sustained by the court below, and no clear error has been pointed out. The matters referred to in the second and third assignments are purely technical, and do not affect the merits. We find nothing in the record to justify us in reversing the decree.

Decree affirmed, and the appeal dismissed, at the costs of the appellants.