Finance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Trenton & N.B. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 May 1911
• Citation: 189 F. 282
• Parties: FINANCE CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TRENTON & N.B. RY. CO. et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

189 F. 282

FINANCE CO. OF PENNSYLVANIA v. TRENTON & N.B. RY. CO. et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. New Jersey.

May 22, 1911

Ellis L. Pierson and Gaskill & Gaskill, for petitioner.

Bayard Stockton and Joseph De F. Junkin, for complainant.

RELLSTAB District Judge.

The petitioner seeks to intervene as a party defendant, claiming to have a preferred equitable lien on the funds in the hands of the master ready for distribution. He claims that during the time that the Trenton & New Brunswick Railroad Company (hereinafter called the defendant company) was in the hands of the receiver, the Bordentown Electric Light & Motor Company (hereinafter called the power company), of which he is the receiver, without its knowledge, furnished the defendant company with electric current used by it as motive power for a portion of its lines.

The record shows that the power company plant was at Bordentown and that under contract it furnished electric current to the Camden & Trenton Company before it passed into the hands of a receiver, and during the receivership; that it had no contract with the defendant company or its receiver; that the latter company had its own power plant, located about midway of its line, by which it operated its own cars; that at a place known as New York Junction, in Trenton, the line of the defendant company approached the line of the Camden & Trenton Company; that at such junction there existed what is known as a knife switch, which, when closed, connected the lines used by such two railway companies; that when the switch was closed the electric current from either power plant could flow along the line of either railway company, the source of the used flow, in whole or in part, depending upon the demand of the traffic on both lines at the same time and the ability of the respective power plants to furnish the required power to adequately operate the cars on its own lines; that such switch was put in by the managements of the two railroad companies prior to the appointment of the receivers; and that the traffic agreement between such companies stipulated that the defendant company should furnish power to the Camden &amp Trenton Company through this switch when required.

The receiver for the defendant company was appointed in February 1908, and discharged in May, 1910, after an allowance of his accounts and payments of all bills contracted by him. No representation was made to the court by the receiver of the defendant company that any additional power was necessary and no order was made...