Crowther v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co.

Decision Date01 February 1898
Docket Number240.
Citation85 F. 41
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
PartiesCROWTHER et al. v. FIDELITY INSURANCE TRUST & SAFE-DEPOSIT CO. et al.

John E Roller, for appellants.

J. S Clark and John T. Harris, Jr., for appellees.

Before SIMONTON, Circuit Judge, and BRAWLEY and PURNELL, District judges.

SIMONTON Circuit Judge.

This case comes up on appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the Western district of Virginia. The Shenandoah Iron Company, a manufacturing corporation of the state of Virginia, became insolvent. The trustee of a first mortgage on the property of the company filed a bill for the foreclosure thereof, under which receivers were appointed and on a full hearing obtained its decree for sale. Creditors were called in, who submitted proofs of their claims to a special master appointed by the court. The master made his report. The mortgage bears date April 1, 1881, and secures bonds bearing the same date to the amount of $500,000. In his report the master stated the claims in classes according to his views of their priority. Among these were certain claims for labor and supplies which existed against the defendant company prior to the appointment of the receivers, but subsequent in date to the mortgage. The claimants insisted that these claims had priority over the mortgage debts, and that the proceeds of sale should be applied to their extinction before any part of the mortgage debt could be paid. They rest their position on the acts of the general assembly of the state of Virginia passed in 1877 and 1879, and on section 2485 of the Code of Virginia. The circuit court overruled this claim of priority, holding that the statutes of Virginia were unconstitutional and void, and that section 2485 of the Code of Virginia, as to these claims, under the circumstances of this case, was also void. Exceptions were taken, and assignments of error made. The question now to be decided is this: As the law of Virginia stood at the date of the passage of the Code of 1887, had claims for labor or supplies against manufacturing companies a lien prior to the lien of an antecedent recorded mortgage?

On 21st March, 1877, the general assembly of Virginia passed an act entitled 'An act to secure the payment of wages or salaries to certain employees of railway, canal, steamboat, and other corporations. ' The words of the act are:

'Be it enacted by the general assembly, that hereafter all conductors, brakesman, engine-drivers, firemen, captains, stewards, pilots, clerks, depot o office agents, storekeepers, mechanics, or laborers, and all persons furnishing railroad iron, fuel and all other supplies necessary for the operation of trains and engines employed in the service of any railroad, canal or other transportation company, chartered under or by the laws of this state or doing business within its limits, shall have a prior lien on the franchises, the gross earnings, and all the real and personal property of said company, which is used in operating the same, for and to the extent of the wages or salaries contracted to be paid them by said company. ' Acts 1877, p. 188.

It will be noted that the title of this act speaks of 'railway, canal, steamboat, and other corporations. The act itself, the enactment which is the law, confines its operation to 'railroad, canal, or other transportation companies.' The constitution of Virginia (article 5, Sec. 15) provides that 'no law shall embrace more than one object, and that shall be expressed in the title.' The object of this act clearly is to protect employees of railroad, canal, and other transportation companies. And if we give the title the broad signification claimed for it by the appellants, and make the words 'other corporations' mean corporations of every class as well as corporations for transportation purposes, the title of the act would not express its object, and the act would be obnoxious to the constitutional requirement. But the construction should be adopted 'ut res magis valeat quam pereat,' and to save this act we must conclude, as the court below did, that the words 'other corporations' in this title must be construed by the maxim 'Noscitur a sociis,' and hold that it means corporations ejusdem generis. And this manifestly is the legislative construction of the act by the general assembly of Virginia. On 2d April, 1879, an act was passed entitled 'An act to amend and re-enact the first and second sections of an act approved March 21st, 1877, entitled 'An act to secure the payment of the wages or salaries to certain employees of railway, canal, steamboat and other transportation companies.' The body of the act is as follows:

'Be it enacted by the general assembly, that hereafter all conductors, brakesmen, engine-drivers, firemen, captains, stewards, pilots, clerks, depot or office agents, storekeepers, mechanics or laborers, and all persons furnishing railroad iron, engines, cars, fuel and all other supplies necessary for the operation of any railway, canal or other transportation company, or of any mining or manufacturing company, chartered under or by the laws of this state, or doing business within its limits, shall have a prior lien on the franchises, the gross earnings, and on all the real and personal property of said company which is used in operating the same, to the extent of the moneys due them by said company for such wages or supplies; and no mortgage, deed of trust, sale, conveyance or hypothecation hereafter executed of said property, shall defeat or take precedence over said lien; but it is expressly provided that the liens of the employees and officials aforesaid shall be prior to that of all other liens whatsoever, and shall be the first discharged. ' Acts 1879, p. 352.

Section 2 provides the mode of securing the lien provided for in the first section. It will be noted that while the title of this act declares that it is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • State ex rel. Buchanan County v. Imel
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 23, 1912
    ...486; Mobile v. Railroad, 124 Ala. 132; Pratt v. Browne, 135 Cal. 649, 67 P. 1082; People v. Curry, 130 Cal. 82, 62 P. 516; Crowther v. Fid. Ins., etc. Co., 85 F. 41; Equitable G. & T. Co. v. Donahoe, 3 Penne. 191, 49 A. 372; Henderson B. Co. v. Alves, 122 Ky. 46, 90 S.W. 995; State v. Am. S......
  • Sanderson v. Salmon River Canal Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1927
    ... ... 1, sec. 16; 12 C ... J. 1057, 1058; Fidelity State Bank v. North Fork Highway ... Dist., 35 Idaho 797, ... (12 C. J. 1071, 1072; ... Crowther v. Fidelity Ins. Co., 85 F. 41, 29 C. C. A ... a trust cannot be so disposed of as to divert it from such ... use ... ...
  • Link v. Receivers of Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • October 2, 1934
    ...thus offend against the contract clause of the Constitution (article 1, § 10, cl. 1). 12 C. J. 1071; Crowther v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe-Deposit Co. (C. C. A. 4th) 85 F. 41, 44; National Bank of Commerce v. Jones, 18 Okl. 555, 91 P. 191, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 310, 11 Ann. Cas. It is ......
  • Steward v. Nelson
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1934
    ... ... its ends." (Fidelity State Bank v. North Fork ... Highway Dist., 35 Idaho 797, ... Stanton, 86 ... Tex. 620, 26 S.W. 615; Crowther v. Fidelity Ins. Trust & ... Safe-Deposit Co., 85 F. 41; ... ...
  • 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