Fidelity Trust & Safety Vault Co. v. Mobile Street Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1893
• Citation: 54 F. 26
• Parties: FIDELITY TRUST & SAFETY VAULT CO. v. MOBILE ST. RY. CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama

54 F. 26

FIDELITY TRUST & SAFETY VAULT CO. v. MOBILE ST. RY. CO. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, S.D. Alabama.

January 4, 1893

G. L. &amp H. T. Smith and McCaleb & Lapeyre, for the motion.

Clark &amp Clark and Overall, Bestor & Gray, opposed.

TOULMIN District Judge.

As preliminary to this motion it is suggested that the court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide it, because an appeal has been taken in the cause, and a supersedeas bond given with a stay of proceedings. The decree appealed from is one confirming the report of the special master, and decreeing the payment of money thereunder for solicitors' fees and other expenses, and was a final decree. The execution of that decree was superseded, but the supersedeas has nothing to do with the decree in which the equities of the cause were involved, and by which they were settled, nor does it preclude collateral or independent proceedings. An appeal where a supersedeas is obtained, does not preclude parties from prosecuting collateral or independent proceedings (Amer. Dig. 1892, p. 285, Sec. 1729;) and it is held that an appeal to the supreme court with a stay does not oust the jurisdiction of the lower court, (Amer. Dig. 1892, p. 288, Sec. 1743; Briggs v. Shea, (Minn.) 50 N.W. 1037.) This motion is a separate and distinct proceeding from that which culminated in the decree from which the appeal in question was taken. It is based on grounds which have nothing to do with the issues involved in and settled by that decree. The purpose of the motion now submitted is not to raise any question going behind that decree or concluded by it. Whatever course may be taken by the appellate court as to the decree appealed from, whether it be affirmed or reversed, the question arising on this motion would neither be determined nor discussed. Tested by these rules, which are found laid down in Allen v. Allen, 80 Ala. 154, I am of opinion that the court has the jurisdiction to decide this motion.

The grounds of opposition to the motion, as stated, are inadequacy of price and unfairness in the sale. If the property sold at an inadequate price, the inadequacy must be so great as to shock the conscience and to excite the suspicion of the court, or there must be an inadequacy of price, with additional circumstances against the fairness of the sale, growing out of fraud, accident, or some trust relation of the parties. On the proof submitted as to the value of the property I am not convinced that it...