Dow v. Memphis Co

Citation124 U.S. 652,8 S.Ct. 673,31 L.Ed. 565
PartiesDOW et al. v. MEMPHIS & L. R. R. CO. 1
Decision Date20 February 1888
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[

The facts on which this case rests are these: Robert K. Dow, Watson Matthews, and Charles Moran are the trustees in two mortgages executed by the Memphis & Little Rock Railroad Company, as reorganized one on the first and the other on the second of May, 1877, to secure two separate issues of bonds. Each of the mortgages covered, among other things, 'all the incomes, rents, issues, tolls, profits, receipts, rights, benefits, and advantages had, received, or derived by the party of the first part from any of the hereby conveyed premises,' which included the railroad of the company; but it was provided that until default in the payment of interest or principal the company should 'retain the possession of all the property hereby conveyed, and receive and enjoy the income thereof.' In case of default for 60 days in the payment of interest, the trustees were authorized to enter upon and take possession of 'all and singular the charter, franchises and property * * * conveyed,' 'and take and receive the income and profits thereof.' The company failed to pay its interest falling due July 1, 1882, and thereafter. For this reason the trustees began this suit against the company in the circuit court of the United States on the 12th of February, 1884, praying that they might be put into the possession of the mortgaged property in accordance with the terms of the mortgage of May 2, 1877, and for the purposes therein expressed, 'and that the defendant may be enjoined from interfering with their possession, or disturbing it in any way.' On the 24th of March they applied for the appointment of a receiver, and the court, on the 27th of that month, granted the parties until April 7th to file briefs on the motion, but ordered 'that the defendant, until further order herein, hold the property mentioned in the bill subject to the order of the court.' On the 15th of April a receiver was appointed, and the company was ordered at once to 'surrender possession of its said railroad, rolling stock, and all other money and property of every character' to him. To this order exceptions were taken by the company, so far as it directed the delivery of money to the receiver, on the ground 'that all the money in its hands or possession was derived by it from the operation of the railroad and other property mentioned in the bill, and was its income and the income of said property, and that it had no money whatever, save such as was thus derived and received;' and that at no time had the plaintiff demanded possession of the property. On the 18th of April this motion was denied, but the receiver was directed to hold the moneys to be paid him 'subject to the order of the court, and to be repaid to defendant should the court so adjudge.' On the 27th of March the company had in its hands $42,123.68. Between that date and April 15th the company paid out $46,458.16, and its earnings were such that, when added to the $42,123.68, there was enough to make these payments and leave a balance of $32,216.20, which was paid over to the receiver.

Certain persons who were holders of bonds secured by the mortgage of May 1, 1877, recovered judgments at law against the company for past-due coupons, amounting in the aggregate to more than the sum thus put in the hands of the receiver, and they presented petitions for payment out of the fund. Afterwards the court ordered the receiver to pay back the $32,216.20 to the company, and to turn over the mortgaged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Fordyce v. Omaha, Kansas City & E.R.R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • April 11, 1906
    ... ... fact, any interest, upon the bonded debt, we are unable to ... sanction the order authorizing the payment of said claims ... from the proceeds of the sale of the property. See ... Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U.S. 235, 25 L.Ed. 339.' ... In ... Hunt v. Memphis Gaslight Co., 95 Tenn. 143, 144, 31 S.W ... 1006, 1008, it was said: 'Again, the doctrine invoked by ... the complainants only applies where there is a diversion of ... the income of a 'going concern' from the purpose of ... which the income is equitably and primarily devoted, viz., ... the ... ...
  • Atlantic Trust Co. v. Dana
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • December 21, 1903
    ... ... entitled thereto giving due effect to such priorities of ... right as were or should be acquired under equitable levies of ... judgment creditors or pledges made by the debtor company ... Hitz v.Jenks, 123 U.S. 297, 306, 8 Sup.Ct. 143, 31 L.Ed. 156; ... dow v. Memphis & Little Rock R.R. Co., 124 U.S. 652, ... 655, 8 Sup.Ct. 673, 31 L.Ed. 565; Union Bank of Chicago ... v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U.S. 223 236, 10 Sup.Ct. 1013, ... 34 L.Ed. 341; Porter v. Sabin, 149 U.S. 473, 479 13 ... Sup.Ct. 1008, 37 L.Ed. 815; Ames v. U.P. Ry. Co ... [128 F. 219] ... ...
  • Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Doud
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 21, 1900
  • Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N.W.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • November 21, 1892
  • 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