Bradford v. Frankfort, St. L.&T.R. Co.

• Citation: 142 Ind. 383,41 N.E. 819
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
• Decision Date: 30 October 1895
• Parties: BRADFORD v. FRANKFORT, ST. L. & T. R. CO. et al.

142 Ind. 383

41 N.E. 819

BRADFORD

v.FRANKFORT, ST. L. & T. R. CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 30, 1895.

Petition for rehearing. Overruled.

For original opinion, see 40 N. E. 741.

HACKNEY, J.

The appellee the Frankfort, St. Louis & Toledo Railroad Company has presented an earnest petition for a rehearing. The only question presented which did not receive full consideration on the original hearing is as to the effect of a notice given by Moses Bradford, at the time of the foreclosure sale mentioned in the original opinion, to the purchasers, to the general effect that he held paid-up stock in said company; that he had paid taxes voted in aid of the construction of said road; that the then existing consolidation of said company with the Toledo, Delphos & Burlington Railroad Company and the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company was not legal; and that he would “contest the validity” of the alleged consolidation. The effect of this notice, it is insisted, was to preclude the purchasers, the subsequent consolidated companies, the mortgage bondholders, and the public from asserting the estoppel held by us in the original opinion to be effective against this petitioner. At most, this general notice could not affect the public interests, which are held of paramount importance. Nor are we advised of its effect upon subsequent investors by consolidation and by purchase of bonds, who are not claimed to have been advised of it. The weakness of the notice is not alone in its failure to advise of a single instance in which any of the original proceedings for and of consolidation were irregular or involved; but its further weakness is in the declaration of claimed rights, not of the petitioner, but of Bradford, whose own participancy in the acts of which he complained was then known, and has since been held to close his mouth to question their validity. As to the rights of the petitioner, and as to those of Bradford, we can as well say, the notice gave no warning not contained in the corporation records, as disclosed by the allegations of the answers. We are not advised by the record, or by argument of counsel, that the Bradford notice put any one upon inquiry of matters not apparent upon the face of the proceedings of consolidation, and, conceding that the petitioner may avail herself of Bradford's notice, its effect was but to advise of those things set up in the answers, which we have held sufficient against the charge of...