Browning v. Boswell
| Decision Date | 12 November 1913 |
| Docket Number | 1,217. |
| Citation | 209 F. 788 |
| Parties | BROWNING et al. v. BOSWELL et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
W. J Henson, of Roanoke, Va., and Richard B. Tippett, of Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
W. H De C. Wright and E. P. Keech, Jr., both of Baltimore, Md Geo. W. St. Clair, and J. Powell Royall, both of Tazewell Va., and Charles H. Howard, of Dorchester, Mass., for appellees.
Before PRITCHARD, WOODS, and KNAPP, Circuit Judges.
This motion to make Michael Sheehan and the other general creditors of the Big Vein Pocahontas Coal Company parties to this appeal by the issuance of citation to them arose out of the following proceedings: Suit was instituted in the Circuit Court for the Western District of Virginia on October 28, 1910, by the complainants, Thomas T. Boswell, Andrew C. Snyder, and Merville H. Carter for the benefit of the complainants and other creditors of the company, the bill alleging that the company had acquired a lease of valuable coal lands in the county of Tazewell, in the state of Virginia, and had expended large sums of money in the effort to make the lands productive, and that in operating the property the company had become involved in large debts which it was unable to meet. Other allegations were made showing the necessity for the court to take charge of the property by the appointment of receivers who should continue to operate it while the court called in the creditors, marshaled the assets, and ascertained the indebtedness and liens and priorities. The court appointed receivers who have had charge of the property and revenues since October 28, 1910.
While the cause was pending Ollie H. Browning in her own right and as guardian for James S. Browning, Jr., and James S. Browning, by petition, asked that they be allowed to intervene in the suit, on the allegation that they were entitled to a first lien on the property for about $140,000. The petition was granted, and they were made parties by order of the court. Allis-Chalmers Company, a corporation, was also allowed to intervene and be made a party on its petition, alleging that it had a first and prior lien on the property of the defendant company to the extent of $2,500, with interest. A suit for foreclosure brought by the Colonial Trust Company, trustee under the mortgage executed by the Big Vein Pocahontas Coal Company, was consolidated with the suit brought by the complainants, Boswell and others. A special master was appointed for the purpose of ascertaining and reporting to the court the debts and liabilities of the corporation and the relative priorities of the different creditors. The special master filed his report, and found that Ollie H. Browning in her own right and as guardian for James S. Browning, Jr., had a first and prior lien on all of the real estate, property and equipment of the defendant company, for $139,746.59; that there were a number of general creditors who held valid claims against the estate for various amounts, ranging from a few dollars to more than $16,000; that Jeffrey Manufacturing Company was a creditor to the extent of $7,848.86 and that it had a prior lien for that amount on a portion of the defendant company's property; that Roberts and Schaefer Company was also a creditor and had a lien prior to other creditors on a portion of the property for its claim.
The District Court entered a decree on the 10th day of April 1913, in which the master's report was confirmed as to claims of the general creditors Jeffrey Manufacturing Company and Roberts and Schaefer Company; but Allis-Chalmers Company was declared to be a creditor, entitled to be paid before the general creditors, although it did not have a prior lien on any specific property, as claimed by it in its petition. It was further decreed that Ollie H. Browning did not have a prior lien, as reported by the master, for $139,746.59, but, on the contrary, that she was indebted in a large sum of money to the defendant company, and that the notes of the company held by her were void, and it was ordered that she deliver the notes, amounting to $150,000, to the clerk of the court to be canceled, and that she pay over to the receivers of the court the amount held to be due from her to the defendant company. Mrs. Browning filed a petition for rehearing, which, after consideration by the court, was refused on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. American Asiatic Underwriters
...appellee. Miller v. Hatfield, 309 U.S. 1, 60 S.Ct. 374, 84 L.Ed. 535; In re Knox-Powell-Stockton Co., 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 61; Browning v. Boswell, 4 Cir., 209 F. 788. See, also, Stepp v. McAdams, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 925. In the case at bar, such a request, if made, would be denied; for, not being a......
-
Hart v. Wiltsee, 2070.
...Railroad Equipment Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. (C. C. A.) 92 F. 541; Gray v. Grand Forks Mercantile Co. (C. C. A.) 138 F. 344; Browning v. Boswell (C. C. A.) 209 F. 788; In re T. E. Hill Co. (C. C. A.) 148 F. 832; Lockman v. Lang (C. C. A.) 132 F. 1; Mendenhall v. Hall, 134 U. S. 559, 10 S. Ct.......
-
Hill v. Western Elec. Co.
... ... amendments respecting any defect in process or pleading. 1 ... Foster, Fed. Prac. (3d Ed.) Secs. 160, 161, et seq.; ... Browning v. Boswell, 209 F. 788, 791, 126 C.C.A. 512 ... (C.C.A. 4th Cir.). It is not suggested that the practice in ... this respect in equity or ... ...
- In re Louisell Lumber Co.