Central Trust Co v. George, No. 965

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSHIRAS
Citation14 S.Ct. 286,151 U.S. 129,38 L.Ed. 98
Docket NumberNo. 965
Decision Date03 January 1894
PartiesCENTRAL TRUST CO. v. McGEORGE et al

151 U.S. 129
14 S.Ct. 286
38 L.Ed. 98
CENTRAL TRUST CO.

v.

McGEORGE et al.

No. 965.
January 3, 1894.

Page 130

Statement by Mr. Justice SHIRAS:

On the 8th day of August, 1892, the Central Trust Company, a corporation created by and existing under the laws of the state of New York, filed a bill in equity in the circuit court of the United States for the western district of Virginia against the Virginia, Tennessee & Carolina Steel & Iron Company, created by and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey.

The bill alleged that the defendant company had a place of business, and carried on its business, at Bristol, in the western district of Virginia, and owned property, real and personal, at Bristol, and elsewhere in the state of Virginia; that the said defendant company was insolvent; that the plaintiff company had obtained a judgment on the law side of the court, on which an execution had been sued out, and returned by the marshal nulla bona, and prayed for the appointment of a receiver. The defendant company appeared by its president, John C. Haskell, and consented to the appointment of a receiver, and thereupon Judge Bond made an order appointing said John C. Haskell and D. H. Conklin receivers of said defendant company.

On the same day two other bills were filed in suits styled as follows: 'The Central Trust Company of New York v. The South Atlantic and Ohio Railroad Company,' and 'The Virginia, Tennessee and Carolina Steel and Iron Company v. The Bristol Land Company.'

In each of said additional bills the complainant company alleged the insolvency of the defendant company, as evidenced by a judgment obtained against it by confession, in the court on its law side, on which an execution had issued, and been returned on the same day as nulla bona. In the firstnamed of these last two suits, the defendant company appeared by its vice president, John C. Haskell, and consented that a receiver should be appointed; and in the lastnamed suit the

Page 131

defendant company appeared by its president, John C. Haskell, and consented to the appointment of a receiver, and thereupon Judge Bond appointed said John C. Haskell and D. H. Conklin receivers of each of said companies, respectively.

On the 19th day of October, 1892, a petition was presented to the circuit court by William McGeorge and others, claiming to be stockholders and creditors of the Virginia, Tennessee & Carolina Steel & Iron Company, and John M. Bailey, claiming to be the 'valid receiver' of the corporations named, by virtue of an order made by Hon. D. W. Bolen, judge of the fifteenth judicial circuit of Virginia, in vacation, on the 6th day of August, 1890, asking that they might be made parties complainants or defendants, as the court might determine, and that the several causes named might be consolidated and heard together. The petition further alleged that the Virginia, Tennessee & Carolina Steel & Iron Company was the main and substantial company; that the South Atlantic & Ohio Railroad Company and the Bristol Land Company were mere offshoots or dependent companies; that the several confessions of judgments entered in the court on the 8th day of August, 1892, were made by a person who had no power or authority to make such confessions of judgment; that said judgments were procured by fraud and collusion between the representatives, respectively, of the complainant and defendant companies; and that the orders made by Judge Bond, appointing receivers for each of said defendant companies, were obtained by misrepresentation, fraud, and collusion by and between said representatives of the complainant and defendant companies. The said petition furtheir alleged that in the cause of The Central Trust Company of New York v. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
99 practice notes
  • Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 1,658.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • August 10, 1912
    ...privilege of the defendant,' which the defendant might either insist upon or waive at his election. Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U.S. 129, 132, 14 Sup.Ct. 286, 38 L.Ed. 98; Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 [201 F. 942] U.S. 201, 208, 15 Sup.Ct. 563, 39 L.Ed. 672, 675; and Interior......
  • W. v. Byron
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 8, 1927
    ...1087; St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. V. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 130, 11 S. Ct. 982, 35 L. Ed. 659; Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U. S. 129, 135, 14 S. Ct. 286, 38 L. Ed. Independently of the waiver of the point by the commission, the proceeding was properly begun in Baltimore City by......
  • Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 1,620.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • January 2, 1908
    ...was neither before the court nor necessary for the determination of the issue involved in that suit. In Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U.S. 129, 14 Sup.Ct. 286, 38 L.Ed. 98, which was instituted when the act of 1888 was in force, the identical question was before the court, and it was h......
  • Rodgers v. Pitt, 658.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • September 18, 1899
    ...Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U.S. 127, 132, 11 Sup.Ct. 982; Railroad Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593, 603, 12 Sup.Ct. 905; Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U.S. 129, 133, 14 Sup.Ct. 286; Improvement Co. v. Gibney, 160 U.S. 217, 219, 16 Sup.Ct. 272; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U.S. 359, 362, 17 Sup.Ct. 343;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
99 cases
  • Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 1,658.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Eastern District of Tennessee
    • August 10, 1912
    ...privilege of the defendant,' which the defendant might either insist upon or waive at his election. Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U.S. 129, 132, 14 Sup.Ct. 286, 38 L.Ed. 98; Mexican Nat. R. Co. v. Davidson, 157 [201 F. 942] U.S. 201, 208, 15 Sup.Ct. 563, 39 L.Ed. 672, 675; and Interior......
  • W. v. Byron
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • July 8, 1927
    ...1087; St. Louis & San Francisco R. Co. V. McBride, 141 U. S. 127, 130, 11 S. Ct. 982, 35 L. Ed. 659; Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U. S. 129, 135, 14 S. Ct. 286, 38 L. Ed. Independently of the waiver of the point by the commission, the proceeding was properly begun in Baltimore City by......
  • Logan & Bryan v. Postal Telegraph & Cable Co., 1,620.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • January 2, 1908
    ...was neither before the court nor necessary for the determination of the issue involved in that suit. In Central Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U.S. 129, 14 Sup.Ct. 286, 38 L.Ed. 98, which was instituted when the act of 1888 was in force, the identical question was before the court, and it was h......
  • Rodgers v. Pitt, 658.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • September 18, 1899
    ...Railway Co. v. McBride, 141 U.S. 127, 132, 11 Sup.Ct. 982; Railroad Co. v. Cox, 145 U.S. 593, 603, 12 Sup.Ct. 905; Trust Co. v. McGeorge, 151 U.S. 129, 133, 14 Sup.Ct. 286; Improvement Co. v. Gibney, 160 U.S. 217, 219, 16 Sup.Ct. 272; Robinson v. Caldwell, 165 U.S. 359, 362, 17 Sup.Ct. 343;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT