Central Trust Co of New York v. Grant Locomotive Works Same v. Grant Dayton v. Grant Locomotive Works Same v. Grant, s. 1,277
Decision Date | 21 April 1890 |
Docket Number | No. 1,278,Nos. 1,277,1,282,No. 1,280,1,281,Nos. 1,279,s. 1,277,s. 1,279,1,278,1,280 |
Citation | 10 S.Ct. 736,135 U.S. 207,34 L.Ed. 97 |
Parties | CENTRAL TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. GRANT LOCOMOTIVE WORKS et al. (two cases). SAME v. GRANT, (two cases. DAYTON, F. W. & C. R. Co. v. GRANT LOCOMOTIVE WORKS et al. SAME v. GRANT |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
On August 1 and 2, 1883, upon a creditors' bill brought by Granville D. Braman, a judgment creditor of the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company, Edwin D. Dwight was appointed receiver of all the property of the company in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, by orders made in the circuit courts of the United States in districts of those states. August 14, 1883, the Central Trust Company filed its bill in the United States circuit court for the southern district of Ohio against the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company, the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, and the said Braman and another, asking a foreclosure of certain mortgages therein described. This cause was numbered 3,554. In October, 1883, the Central Trust Company filed its bill in the same court against the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company, the Toledo, Delphos & Burlington Railroad Company, and the said Braman for a foreclosure of certain mortgages therein set forth, which cause was numbered 3,578. On October 25, 1883, one William J. Craig was appointed receiver of the mortgaged property in each of these causes, took possession of it, and superseded the possession of the former receiver, Dwight. October 27, 1883, the Grant Locomotive Works and the American Loan & Trust Company by leave filed their intervening petition in No. 3,578, set- ting up a contract between the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company and the Grant Locomotive Works for the leasing and conditional purchase chase by and sale to the railroad company of 10 locomotives, Nos. 57 to 66, for the price of $105,000, payable in installments, the title to the locomotives remaining in the Grant Locomotive Works until payment was fully made; that the whole purchase price was represented by bonds of the railroad company, made payable at the office of the American Loan & Trust Company at Boston, and certified to by said trust company as trustee; the default of the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company; and praying a surrender of the 10 locomotives, and the payment of all arrears due for rent, interest, and repairs up to that time, under said contract, and also of any deficiency that might arise upon a resale by them of the said 10 locomotives, and for other relief. On the same day, R.S . Grant filed in No. 3,554 his intervening petition, alleging a similar contract with the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company in respect to other locomotives at the price of $90,558.97, of which $18,558.97 was paid in cash, and the remaining $72,000 was made payable in monthly installments, represented by bonds of the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, the payment of which was assumed by the Toledo, Cincinnati which was assumed by the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company, upon consolidating with the former company, in 1883, the title to the locomotives remaining in the said Grant until payment in full was completed; the default of the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company; and praying for the return of the locomotives, the payment of all arrears due for rent, interest, and repairs up to that time, and also of any deficiency that might arise upon a resale of the said locomotives, and for other relief.
On December 6, 1883, Craig, as receiver, by his attorney, filed his answer to the intervening petitions, admitted the agreements and the defaults in payment, and further answered that all the locomotives were in his possession, and were necessary to the operation of the railroads by him; and prayed that the court would make such order as would enable him to retain the possession and use of the locomotives. On the 17th of December, 1883, the attorney of the receiver notified the judge of the court that there was no reason why judgment should not go upon the intervening petitions, and that there was no objection to the draft of decrees, as the receiver had only resisted claims for damages, and these had been waived. On the 22d day of December, 1883, of the October term, two orders were entered in each of said causes, Nos. 3,554 and 3,578, in favor of the intervening petitioners. The two in favor of R. S. Grant in No. 3,554 were as follows: The second order commenced: This order continued in the terms of the preceding one, and decreed certain amounts for rentals, interest, and repairs down to December 1, 1883, and a further sum in full as purchase money fro said locomotives and tenders, and concluded as follows:
Upon the 7th day of March, A. D. 1884, the same being one of the days of the February term, 1884, of the court, these orders were suspended by an order of court; the petitioner objecting. On the 15th day of March, A. D. 1884, the Central Trust Company filed its petition in the cause, which it prayed might be taken as an answer to the intervening petition of Grant, and also as a petition for rehearing and review of the orders of December 22, 1883, which it further asked should be annulled and set aside. On the 10th day of April, of the April term, 1884, an order was entered in the circuit court as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hendryx v. Perkins
... ... On the same day the defendants filed an answer to the bill of ... 146, 6 ... L.Ed. 287; Central Trust Co. v. Grant Locomotive ... Works, 135 ... ...
-
United States v. 243.22 Acres of Land
...so as to authorize an appeal without awaiting the termination of the general litigation below (Central Trust Co. v. Grant Locomotive Works, 135 U. S. 207, 224, 10 S.Ct. 736, 34 L.Ed. 97; Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684, 699, 4 S.Ct. 638, 28 L.Ed. 559; Trustees v. Greenough, 105 U.S. 527, 2......
-
Compton v. Jesup
... ... of the same state appeared on both sides of the controversy ... Ohio part,-- one to the Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, ... trustee, to secure $900,000 of ... to the Central Trust Company, and James Cheney, of Indiana, ... citizen of New York, and James Cheney, a citizen of Indiana, ... circuit court had no power to entertain and grant relief ... on the bill of Knox and Jesup, ... 82, ... 12 Sup.Ct. 787; Mellen v. Iron Works, 131 U.S. 352, ... 9 Sup.Ct. 781. The ... v ... Grant Locomotive Works, 135 U.S. 207, 10 Sup.Ct. 736; ... ...
-
Vincent v. Plecker
...of Insurance v. Board Street Mutual Casualty Ins. Co., 306 Mass. 362, 28 N.E.2d 222;Central Trust Co. v. Grant Locomotive Works, 135 U.S. 207, 224, 225, 10 S.Ct. 736, 34 L.Ed. 97;Odell v. H. Batterman Co., 2 Cir., 223 F. 292;Rubert Hermanos, Inc. v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 118 F.2d 7......