Chicago Great Western Ry. Co. v. McCaffrey

Citation160 N.W. 818,178 Iowa 1147
Decision Date13 January 1917
Docket Number29932
PartiesCHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee, v. T. F. MCCAFFERY, Sheriff, et al., Appellants
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Appeal from Pottawattamie District Court.--E. B. WOODRUFF, Judge.

SUIT to enjoin the sale of a lot on execution resulted in decree as prayed. The defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

Kimball & Peterson, for appellants.

Carr Carr & Evans, and Saunders & Stuart, for appellee.

LADD J. GAYNOR, C. J., PRESTON and SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

LADD, J.

I.

Judgment in the superior court of Council Bluffs was first entered against the Chicago Great Western Railway Company in favor of McManus, July 18, 1906. It was reversed (McManus v Chicago G. W. R. Co., 138 Iowa 150, 115 N.W. 919), and another judgment entered. A transcript thereof was filed with the clerk of the district court, November 29, 1910, and the judgment was affirmed on condition, June 10, 1912. McManus v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 156 Iowa 359, 136 N.W. 769. The condition, that of a remittitur, was complied with. An execution had been issued, and, on December 20, 1910, levied on Lot 4 in Block 7 of Riddle's Subdivision in Council Bluffs. The object of this suit is to enjoin the sale of the lot, on the ground that the judgment never attached as a lien thereon, the property at the time of the levy belonging, as is alleged, to the plaintiff. It appears that the Chicago Great Western Railway Company, which may be referred to hereafter as the railway company, acquired the lot February 17, 1905; and, unless divested of title prior to the filing of the transcript of the judgment of the superior court with the clerk of the district court, November 29, 1910, said judgment became a lien thereon. The plaintiff claims to have acquired title thereto under a deed executed September 1, 1909, by a special master in chancery, in pursuance of the orders of the United States Circuit Court of the District of Minnesota. Receivers were appointed by that court on January 9, 1907, "of all the franchises and property, of every name and nature, whether real, personal or mixed, whether at law or in equity, whether in action or in possession, and wherever situated, of the defendant Chicago Great Western Railway Company." They were authorized "to take immediate possession of said property . . . and also to go in and conduct the prosecution and defense of any suits now pending for or against said Chicago Great Western Railway Company, which affect or may affect the property of which they are hereby appointed receivers." The different lines of the company's railway are described in the decree, and it is stated therein that:

"It owns also all the rights of way, tracks, bridges, structures, viaducts, station houses, engine houses, freight houses, machine shops, and property which are appurtenant to said several lines of railway." Also cars and equipment, giving numbers, and that it, "in connection with the foregoing property and as part of its railway system, owns also divers and sundry leases and leasehold estates, contracts for running rights, leases of and contracts for terminals, depot grounds, trackage rights, crossings, interlocking plants, freight houses and various other facilities used in connection with said railway or related to the operation thereof. It owns also divers and sundry stocks, bonds, securities, notes, accounts, money, supplies and other property appurtenant to said lines of railway or related to the operation thereof."

The decree then describes the lines owned by the Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company, together with terminals, yards, equipment and other property appertaining to said lines of railway, and recites that said railway company "was in possession and was operating said railways and property of said Mason City & Fort Dodge Railroad Company under said leases and agreements; and, since the appointment of the receivers herein, the said railways have been operated by such receivers."

On April 7, 1908, an interlocutory decree was entered, adjudging the material allegations of the complaint true; that the railway company was and is insolvent; that all of its property, "whether at law or in equity, whether in possession and wherever situated, be sequestrated and set apart to pay the debts and just obligations of the defendant," and the receivers were directed and empowered to "hold, operate and apply all said property for that purpose." The decree also required "the holder or holders of any claim, claims or demands" of said railway company, and "all persons who, as creditors of said company or otherwise, claim any interest in or lien upon any of the funds or property, to file with the special master, on or before November 1, 1908, verified statements of their respective claims," and that those failing so to do "be debarred from sharing in the benefit of the distribution of the moneys and proceeds of the property of said railway company." The decree also declared a sale to be necessary; that the properties and assets constitute one railway system; and that "all said property and assets of every kind and character" ought to be sold as an entirety; and ordered that:

"The property of the defendant Great Western Company of every kind and character and wherever situated, whether or not in the possession or under the control of said receivers, including all its railways, franchises, equipment, structures, supplies, stocks, bonds, claims, bills receivable, rights of action, leases, leasehold estates, contracts and property of every description--whether or not herein specifically described--and also all equipment, supplies, notes, bills, accounts receivable, claims, demands, rights of action and property of every kind and nature, the title or the possession of which at the time possession shall be given under the provisions hereof, shall be in the said receivers--be sold hereunder by the special master of this court hereinafter appointed."

It was further ordered that, in addition to the amount bid, the purchaser should pay certain costs and charges, all debts presented to the special master and allowed in pursuance of the order hereinbefore mentioned, and "all debts obligations and liabilities of the Great Western Company which, within six months after the publication, as herein provided, of the notice for the presentation of such claims, shall have been duly presented to the master, and which shall be duly allowed for payment by said special master without objection, or by the final order, judgment or decree of this court, and which, if they had accrued and been filed prior to November 1, 1908, would have been entitled to payment out of the assets of the Great Western Company now in the hands of the receivers." Then followed provision for publishing notice, and directions that, in event the purchasers failed or refused to pay said debts, obligations and liabilities, "the person holding the claim therefor, upon 15 days' notice ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Osterman v. Ehrenworth
    • United States
    • Superior Court of New Jersey
    • July 15, 1969
    ...in whose favor the privilege existed had not waived it, it was the doctor's duty to claim the privilege. Chicago, G.W.R. Co. v. McCaffery, 178 Iowa 1147, 1155, 160 N.W. 818; Schwimmer v. United States, 8 Cir. (Mo.), 232 F.2d 855, 863 (cert. den., 352 U.S. 833, 77 S.Ct. 48, 1 L.Ed.2d 52); In......
  • Shepherd v. McGinnis
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • November 17, 1964
    ...in whose favor the privilege existed had not waived it, it was the doctor's duty to claim the privilege. Chicago, G. W. R. Co. v. McCaffery, 178 Iowa 1147, 1155, 160 N.W. 818; Schwimmer v. United States, 8 Cir. (Mo.), 232 F.2d 855, 863 (cert. den. 352 U.S. 833, 77 S.Ct. 48, 1 L.Ed.2d 52); I......
  • State v. Bean
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 17, 1976
    ...§ 92, p. 193. We have said the right of an attorney under such circumstances amounts to a duty. Chicago G.W.R. Co. v. McCaffery, 178 Iowa 1147, 1154--1155, 160 N.W. 818, 821 (1917). See also Shepherd v. McGinnis, 257 Iowa 35, 47, 131 N.W.2d 475, 482 (1964). It was appropriate for the witnes......
  • Chi. Great W. Ry. Co. v. McCaffrey
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • January 13, 1917
    ...178 Iowa 1147160 N.W. 818CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN RY. CO.v.MCCAFFREY, SHERIFF, ET AL.No. 29932.Supreme Court of Iowa.Jan. 13, 1917.         Appeal from District Court, Pottawattamie ..., of Council Bluffs, for appellee.LADD, J.        [1] Judgment in the superior court of Council Bluffs was first entered against the Chicago Great Western Railway Company in favor of McManus July 18, 1906. It was reversed         [160 N.W. 819](138 Iowa, 150, 115 N. W. 919, 128 Am. ......

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