Ex parte Jordan

Decision Date01 October 1876
Citation24 L.Ed. 123,94 U.S. 248
PartiesEX PARTE JORDAN
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

APPLICATION for a mandamus to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, to compel the allowance of an appeal from its decision.

The New York, Oswego, and Midland Railroad Company July 1, 1869, executed a mortgage on its railroad, &c., to secure an issue of bonds amounting to $8,000,000. Stevens, Opdyke, & Hewitt, trustees under this mortgage, on or about Nov. 1, 1873, commenced a suit for its foreclosure in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. To this suit the railroad company, Delos De-Wolf, trustee, William H. Macy, trustee, and the Mercantile Trust Company, trustee, were originally the only defendants. Receivers were appointed Nov. 18, 1873; and on the same day, for the purpose of providing money to pay debts owing to employees, and for certain other specified objects, the receivers were authorized to issue from time to time certificates of indebtedness to an amount not exceeding in the aggregate $1,425,000, bearing interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum, and, unless previously discharged, to be paid out of the moneys realized upon the foreclosure equally with any other liabilities incurred by them in the administration of their receivership. Dec. 23, 1873, a further issue of like certificates was authorized, for the purchase of equipment and the payment of rental on leased lines.

In due time an order was regularly entered, taking the bill as confessed. The receivers from time to time filed their accounts; and these were referred to a master, who reported thereon April 29, 1875. Upon the filing of this report the following direction was given by the circuit judge: 'The report may be confirmed, but at present I think no further order should be entered.'

June 29, 1875, Conrad N. Jordan, Henry Amy, Edward Livingston, Frederick P. James, John P. Crosby, and Nathaniel A. Cowdrey, holders, or the representatives of holders, of bonds secured by the mortgage, filed a petition for leave to intervene in the prosecution or defence of the suit, for the protection of the interests they represented. Upon this petition the following order was made, June 30, 1875:——

'It is hereby ordered that the said petitioners have leave, and leave is hereby granted to them, to intervene in this suit for their own interests, and the interests of those whom they represent, and to that end to appear in the suit within three days, as defendants, in the same manner and with like effect as if they were named in the original and supplemental bills as defendants having or claiming an interest: Provided, that said petitioners all appear by the same solicitor or solicitors. This order to be without prejudice to proceedings already had; but this is not to be construed as depriving the petitioners of leave to apply for a rehearing or review of any order heretofore made, upon due notice to the parties interested.'

About the same time a similar petition was presented by John E. Williams and Theodore Houston, and they were admitted upon the same terms.

July 13, 1875, the cause coming on for hearing, the complainants submitted a proposed form of final decree, and the defendants' various amendments thereto. The hearing was postponed until Aug. 4, when a further postponement took place until Sept. 15, and the master was directed 'to compute, ascertain, and report to the court, on or before the eleventh day of September, 1875,' among other things, 'the amount of certificates of indebtedness and notes issued by the receivers under the authority of the court, classifying them so as to show the dates of and authority for their issue, and the purpose of such issues respectively, and to whom issued by the receivers, and the aggregate amount of principal due thereon, with interest computed to Sept. 15, 1875; . . . also what leases have been made to the mortgagor or receivers, and the dates and terms thereof; also what rents have accrued under the terms of such leases and have not been paid.'

The time for taking proof by the master having been extended, his report was not made until Nov. 13. To this report exceptions were filed by Jordan,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • In re Michigan Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • July 20, 1903
    ... ... to appeal from a decree by a stranger whose application to ... intervene had been denied, as in Ex parte Cutting, 94 U.S ... 14, 24 L.Ed. 49, but the case of one who had become a party ... for the purpose of the intervention, and who had been treated ... to have whatever was done reviewed by this court if the ... matter was one in its nature appealable. Ex parte Jordan, 94 ... U.S. 248, 24 L.Ed. 123; Hamlin v. Toledo, etc., R ... Co., 78 F. 664, 24 C.C.A. 271, 36 L.R.A. 826; ... Williams v. Morgan, 111 U.S. 684, ... ...
  • Lang v. Choctaw, O. & G.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 3, 1908
    ... ... 563, 565, 1 Sup.Ct. 512, ... 27 L.Ed. 276; Wiswall v. Sampson, 14 How. 52, 14 ... L.Ed. 322; French v. Gapen, 105 U.S. 509, 525; Ex ... parte Jordan, 94 U.S. 248, 251, 24 L.Ed. 123; Ingraham v ... Dawson, 20 How. 486, 15 L.Ed. 984; Gumbel v ... Pitkin, 113 U.S. 545, 547, 5 Sup.Ct ... ...
  • People ex rel. New York Edison Co. v. Willcox
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 31, 1912
    ...by the appellate courts. Matter of Attorney-General v. No. Am. Life Ins. Co., Pierson, Receiver, etc., 77 N. Y. 297; Ex parte Jordan, 94 U. S. 248, 24 L. Ed. 123;In re Michigan Cent. R. Co., 124 Fed. 727, 59 C. C. A. 643. The following language of Judge Gray in People ex rel. N. Y. C. & H. ......
  • Brown v. Hecht Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 22, 1943
    ...Court's view that the Board must issue a cease and desist order when it finds that an employer has engaged in unfair labor practices.13 The Jordan case13a, like the present case, involved a direction addressed by Congress to the courts. The Supreme Court said: "The allowance of an appeal un......
  • 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