Continental Trust Co. v. WR Bonsal & Co.
Decision Date | 02 October 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 3646.,3646. |
Citation | 72 F.2d 975 |
Parties | CONTINENTAL TRUST CO. et al. v. W. R. BONSAL & CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Gordon M. Buck, of New York City , for appellants.
T. H. Willcox, of Norfolk, Va., and C. Francis Cocke, of Roanoke, Va. (Willcox, Cooke & Willcox, of Norfolk, Va., Cocke, Hazelgrove & Shackelford, of Roanoke, Va., and Weltner, Meadow & Russell and William K. Meadow, all of Atlanta, Ga., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal by the trustees of the three general mortgages of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company from an order according priority under the "six months" rule to certain supply claims filed with the railway receivers. No question is raised as to the sufficiency of the net operating income to pay these and other claims filed, without resort to the corpus of the property; and there is no effort to have the claims declared a charge on the corpus. The trustees contend that the claims do not represent operating expenses but are for supplies furnished for reconstruction and betterments, which have been charged in large part to capital account under the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that for this reason they are not entitled to priority under the six months' rule. The finding of the special master approved by the court below was that the supplies were furnished in connection with projects which were absolutely necessary to the continued operation of the railway and that they added to the value of the property, as well as made possible its continued operation; that they were furnished, not on the general credit of the corporation, but in the expectation that they would be paid from current income; and that they were furnished within the six months next preceding the receivership.
The claims involved in the appeal all relate to supplies used in the construction or repair of bridges on the main line of the railway. That of the Barnett National Bank, assignee of the Vernon Townsend Lumber Company, is for $3,508.76, the value of cross-ties used in the construction of a bridge over the Appomattox river at Petersburg, Va. Claim of Hildreth & Co. is for $929.34 for inspecting the same bridge. Claim of Oglesby Granite Quarries is for $948.15 for rip-rap stone used in connection with replacing a truss span and 500 feet of trestle at the Enoree river bridge. The claim of the Virginia Bridge & Iron Company is for $6,902.87, of which $1,770.84 is for two steel pier casings for strengthening piers which had cracked on the James river bridge at Richmond; $316.79 is for a steel casing for making a similar repair on the Great creek bridge, and $4,815.24 is for structural steel and other bridge material furnished for repairing the Savannah river bridge.
The Petersburg bridge is on the main line of the railway going north towards Richmond, and a large part of the freight and passenger traffic of the Seaboard System passes over it. In 1930 the bridge was an old structure, consisting partly of steel and partly of wood, with a wide and dangerous curvature; the steel portion of the bridge having been erected in 1899. Since 1899, to accommodate the increasingly heavy trains passing over it, the bridge had been strengthened three times. In 1930 it was again showing signs of weakness and further strengthening was not practicable. It was necessary, therefore, that a new bridge be built; and the work of building it was undertaken in 1930, and had not been completed when the receivers were appointed in December of that year. Upon petition to the court, the receivers were allowed to complete the bridge under contracts which had been made by the railroad company; and it appears that in completing it the ties furnished by the Vernon-Townsend Lumber Company must have been used. The new bridge cost $527,711.61, of which $426,756.99 was charged to capital account. It is stated that all of the claims for labor and material used in its construction have been paid either by the railway company or the receivers, except the small claim of the Vernon-Townsend Lumber Company for cross-ties and the inspection charge of Hildreth & Co.
The facts with respect to the Enoree river bridge are thus set forth in the special masters report:
With respect to the bridges repaired at the James river, Great creek and the Savannah river, to which the claim of the Virginia Bridge & Iron Company relates, the facts as stipulated and embodied in the report of the special master are as follows:
The principle upon which the six months' rule is based was first laid down by the Supreme Court in Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235, 251, 25 L. Ed. 339, where the court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Stowers v. Huntington Development & Gas Co., 3636.
-
Southern Railway Company v. Flournoy
...supra, 274 U.S. at 311, 47 S.Ct. at 637; Dictaphone Sales Corp. v. Powell, 77 F.2d 795, 797 (4 Cir. 1935); Continental Trust Co. v. W. R. Bonsal & Co., 72 F.2d 975, 980 (4 Cir. 1934), cert. denied 293 U.S. 624, 55 S.Ct. 239, 79 L. Ed. 711 Nothing unique lifts the claims now on appeal out of......
-
In re Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co.
...Interstate Commerce Commission's rules does not alter the priority of the expenses as `current debts.' Continental Trust Co. et al. v. W. R. Bonsal & Co. et al., 4 Cir., 72 F.2d 975." Although the immediate question considered by the court in Strang v. Montgomery & E. R. Co., 1879, 23 Fed.C......