Crawshay Et Al v. Soutter and Knapp
| Decision Date | 01 December 1867 |
| Citation | 6 Wall. 739,18 L.Ed. 845,73 U.S. 739 |
| Parties | CRAWSHAY ET AL. v. SOUTTER AND KNAPP |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THESE were two appeals from the Circuit Court for Wisconsin, one by Crawshay and Oddie and one by Vose, to review an order confirming the sale of a railroad under a mortgage. The case was shortly this:
Soutter and Knapp, surviving Bronson, were trustees for the benefit of bondholders of a mortgage called a land-grant mortgage given by the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company on a part of its road. The mortgage had been foreclosed, and as is frequent in such cases in Wisconsin, a new company, named the St. Paul, was formed by the purchasers; here the bondholders. Among the bondholders were Crawshay, Oddie, and Vose, the appellants. The two former surrendered all their bonds, and took certificates of stock. The latter (who had been appointed by his cocreditors a trustee to organize the new company), however yet had in his possession, bonds for $5000, for which he held certificates of the trustees entitling him to a corresponding amount of stock in the new company. A difference arose between him and his co-trustees; and the court having confirmed the sale of the old road under the mortgage, he, Crawshay and Oddie appealed from its action. The confirmation had been made subject to payment by the new company of his debt, principal and interest.
Mr. Ryan, for the appellants; Messrs. Cary and Carlisle, contra.
After a protracted litigation, the Circuit Court for the District of Wisconsin, at its last September Term, confirmed the sale made by the marshal in what is known as the land-grant foreclosure suit, brought by Soutter and Knapp, surviving trustees, against the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company. These appeals are brought here to review that order of confirmation, and will be considered together. Various exceptions were taken in the court below, and are renewed here, to the report of the marshal of the sale of the mortgaged premises, but it is unnecessary to notice them, as Crawshay and Oddie are not in a condition to avail themselves of them; and the rights of Vose, as owner of bonds or certificates, are protected by the order of confirmation. Crawshay and Oddie were original bondholders under the land-grant mortgage, but before filing their exceptions to the report of sale, they had surrendered their bonds to the trustees, appointed under the scheme for the adjustment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appeal of Columbus, S. & H.R. Co.
...ought not to obtain a technical legal advantage through which other creditors are to be postponed for his benefit. Crawshay v. Soutter, 6 Wall. 739, 18 L.Ed. 845; Stevens v. Railway Co., heretofore cited. We quite agree the court below in holding that the Sinks mortgage has not obtained any......
-
Selected Products Corporation v. Humphreys
...for the appellate court to grant relief. American Book Co. v. Kansas, 193 U.S. 49, 24 S.Ct. 394, 48 L.Ed. 613; Crawshay v. Souter, 6 Wall. 739, 18 L.Ed. 845; Chase v. Driver, 92 F. 780, 34 C.C.A. 668; Albright v. Oyster, 60 F. 644, 9 C.C.A. So, here, as appellant has accepted the money awar......
-
Tillotson v. The Independent Breweries Company, a Corp.
... ... 569; Symmes v ... Union Trust Co., 60 F. 830; Dester v. Ross, 85 ... Mich. 37; Crawshay v. Souter, 6 Wall. 739, 18 L.Ed ... 845; Treadwell v. United Verde Copper Co., 134 A.D ... Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Central R. & B ... Co., 120 F. 1006; Crawshay v. Soutter, 6 Wall ... 739, 18 L.Ed. 845; Dester v. Ross, 85 Mich. 370, 48 ... N.W. 530.] ... ...
-
Cochran v. M & M TRANSP. CO.
...to reverse it or to review any of the proceedings upon which it is based. Kinealy v. Macklin, 67 Mo. 95, 99; Crawshay v. Soutter and Knapp, 6 Wall. 739, 741, 18 L.Ed. 845; Hayden v. Stone, 112 Mass. 346, 352; Ringgold v. Barley, 5 Md. 186, 59 Am.Dec. 107; Holton v. Ruggles, 1 Root Conn., 31......