Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1886 |
| Citation | 27 F. 176 |
| Parties | BLAIR v. ST. LOUIS, H. & K.R. CO. [1] |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Theodore G. Case, for complainant.
James Carr and Geo. D. Reynolds, for Fogg.
In the case of Dewitt C. Blair v. Josiah Fogg a petition for rehearing was argued the other day, counsel claiming that there were two or three matters which the court did not consider-- which, indeed, were not suggested to the court-- and which justified a different conclusion. Mr. Fogg had away back in 1870, a good claim against the St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad. That company, organized under a special charter, and having done some work, transferred all its property to the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad, a company organized under the General Statutes. In the instrument making the transfer, there was a stipulation that the new company should assume and pay debts to the amount of $19,000, which it is conceded covered the claim of Mr. Fogg. That instrument of transfer was never recorded. The new company finished the road, placed its mortgage upon the property, which mortgage was foreclosed in this suit. After years had passed Mr. Fogg commenced an action at law against the St. Louis & Keokuk Railroad Company, and obtained judgment. He followed that by a proceeding in equity against the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Company, and obtained a decree, charging this judgment against the new company. He now claims that this judgment is a lien prior to the mortgage, and counsel in the argument before me, on the petition for rehearing, contended that the old company, under its charter, had no power to transfer that the new company took the property subject to the debts of the old; and that the creditors of the old company can follow that property wherever they find it. All that, or at least the substance of it, was adjudicated when the decree passed against the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad. Then, he contends that the conditions of the transfer which were shown in the conveyance, although not of record, were conditions which every purchaser from the St. Louis, Hannibal & Keokuk Railroad Company was bound to take notice of. There is not a syllable of testimony showing that there was ever of record anything, indicating that the St. Louis & Keokuk Company had done a particle of work, obtained title to a foot of ground for right of way, or other purposes, or had anything to do with the building of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Co. v. Lombard
... ... Thayer, 105 U.S. 143, 26 L.Ed. 968; Pennsylvania ... R.R. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., R.R. Co., 118 U.S. 290, 6 ... Sup.Ct. 1094, 30 L.Ed. 83; Schofield v. Goodrich Bros ... Illinois Midland Co., 117 U.S. 434, 468, 6 Sup.Ct. 809, ... 29 L.Ed. 963, and Fogg v. Blair, 133 U.S. 534, 540, ... 10 Sup.Ct. 338, 33 L.Ed. 721, do not hold otherwise. In the ... first ... ...
-
Brockett v. Winkle Terra Cotta Co.
...was an appeal from the circuit court of the Eastern District of Missouri (Blair v. St. Louis, H. & K. R. Co., 25 F. 684, rehearing denied 27 F. 176), and involved the law of that state. This was a suit brought against contractors for the construction of a railroad to hold them liable for th......
-
Central Trust Co. v. Wabash, St. L. & P. Ry. Co.
... ... --------- ... [1] Reported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St ... Louis bar ... ...