Johnson Co. v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 25 March 1896
• Citation: 34 A. 835,83 Md. 125
• Parties: JOHNSON CO. v. HENDERSON ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

34 A. 835

83 Md. 125

JOHNSON CO. v. HENDERSON ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 25, 1896

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county, in equity.

Bill by the Johnson Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania, against James B. Henderson, trustee, and others. From an order dissolving a preliminary injunction plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and BRYAN, BRISCOE, RUSSUM, FOWLER ROBERTS, PAGE, and BOYD, JJ.

John Ridout, for appellant.

Nat Wilson, for appellees.

BRISCOE J.

On the 20th of June, 1892, the Tennallytown & Rockville Railroad Company, operating a line of electric railroad from the District of Columbia to Bethesda Park, in Montgomery county Md., conveyed to Messrs. Henderson and Browne, trustees, its railway, equipment, and personal and real property, to secure a first mortgage indebtedness of $25,000. Default having been made in its payments, the trustees were required by the holders of the securities to advertise the property for sale which was done, according to the terms of the first deed of trust. Subsequently the appellant, the Johnson Company, a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the state of Pennsylvania, and a junior creditor of the railroad company, obtained an injunction restraining the sale. The case was afterwards heard upon bill and answer, and this appeal is from an order of the court dissolving the injunction. It is clear that when a case is heard upon bill and answer, if the answer denies the equity of the bill, the injunction, as a general rule, will be dissolved. So the only question here is, do the answers deny the equity relied on in the bill? The bill alleges that the appellant is a judgment creditor for the sum of $7,882.40, and also the holder of certain second mortgage bonds of the railroad company, which are secured by a second deed of trust, bearing date the 8th of April, 1893, covering the property of the railroad company. Both of these claims are subsequent in date to those secured by the deed of trust under which the property was advertised. And the plaintiff alleges the following grounds of equitable relief: (1) That two of the defendants, Messrs. Crosby and Lieb, being the owners of the Georgetown & Tennallytown Railroad, purchased the first mortgage notes for $13,000, described in the bill of complaint, in order that they might, by oppressive foreclosure proceedings, acquire the...