Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company and Fileming, Appellants v. Soutter, Survivor
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | MILLER |
| Citation | 17 L.Ed. 900,69 U.S. 510,2 Wall. 510 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 1864 |
| Parties | MILWAUKIE AND MINNESOTA RAILROAD COMPANY AND FILEMING, APPELLANTS, v. SOUTTER, SURVIVOR |
Page 511
BRONSON and Soutter had filed a bill in the Circuit Court for Wisconsin, against the La Crosse and Milwaukie Railroad Company, to foreclose a mortgage given by the said company to them to secure bonds to the extent of one million of dollars, which that company had put into circulation, and the interest to a large amount on which was due and unpaid. To this bill the Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company—a company which, on a sale under a mortgage junior to that of Bronson and Soutter, was organized, and became, under the laws of Wisconsin, successor in title and interest to the La Crosse and Milwaukie Company, and also three other persons, one named Sebre Howard—were made or became defendants, and opposed the prayer for foreclosure. They alleged that the bonds which the mortgage to Bronson and Soutter had been given to secure, had been sold, transferred or negotiated at grossly inadequate prices, fraudulently in fact, and were not held for full value by these persons, who sought by the foreclosure to recover their par. The court below, being of this opinion, gave a decree in that suit to the extent of but fifty cents on the dollar. Coming here by appeal at the last term,1 the decree, after an animated, protracted, and very able argument in support of it by Mr. Carpenter, in behalf of numerous parties interested, was reversed, and a decree ordered to be entered
Page 512
below for the full amount, cent for cent.2 The suit, at the time of the decree here, had been pending for four years. The mandate from this court ran thus:
'It is ordered that this cause be remanded to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Wisconsin, with directions to enter a decree for all the interest due and secured by the mortgage, with costs; that the court ascertain the amount of moneys in the hands of the receiver or receivers from the earnings of the road covered by the mortgage, which may be applicable to the discharge of the interest, and apply it to the same; and that if the moneys thus applied are not sufficient to discharge the interest due on the first day of March, 1864, then to ascertain the balance remaining due at that date. And in case such balance is not paid within one year from the date of the order of the court ascertaining it, then an order shall be entered directing a sale of the mortgaged premises.'
Upon the filing of this mandate in the court below, the receiver was ordered to make report of the funds in his hands; from which it appeared that he had some $50,000 to $60,000 applicable to the payment of the interest on the bonds in suit.
The Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company, who, as already stated, was an incumbrancer on the road, junior to Bronson and Soutter, insisted that instead of this small amount, there was really, or ought to be, in the receiver's hands, between $300,000 and $400,000 applicable to the payment of interest; and asked an order of reference to a master, with instructions to hear testimony, and ascertain and report on this claim. The court made the order, and postponed further action in the case, until the succeeding term in September. At that term it was ascertained that the master would be unable to report on the complicated accounts of the receiver, involving several millions of dollars; and the receiver was again ordered to report the funds actually in his hands. From this second report, it appeared,
Page 513
that he had no money properly applicable to the payment of the debt of Bronson and Soutter, and thereupon the court proceeded to ascertain the amount of interest due on the bonds secured by their mortgage, and entered a decree accordingly, giving the defendant a year to pay it, before a sale of the mortgaged premises.
From this decree the Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company, the already mentioned successors in title and interest to the La Crosse and Milwaukie Railroad Company, appealed; the first ground assigned for their appeal being that the decree was a departure from the mandate of the court, because such decree should not have been rendered until the accounts of the receiver were adjusted, and it was judicially ascertained how much of the millions he had received ought now to be applied to the payment of complainants' interest.
But another matter was now presented here.
At the first term of the court below, after the mandate was filed, the Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company proposed to pay all the interest due on the mortgage of Bronson and Soutter, on condition that an order should be made, discharging the receiver, and placing the road and its appurtenances in the possession of them, the Milwaukie Company, just named. Upon the hearing of this petition, the judges of the Circuit Court were divided in opinion, and the application so, necessarily, refused.
The amount of Bronson and Soutter's debt, above mentioned, exclusive of interest, which the Milwaukie and Minnesota Railroad Company proposed to pay, was one million of dollars; and this, added to twelve hundred thousand dollars of prior mortgages, made two millions two hundred thousand dollars, which the road and its appurtenances would have to be worth, in order to secure the debt of Bronson and Soutter. The road on which the mortgage was a lien is ninety-five miles, and runs from Milwaukie to Portage, besides the depots, rolling stock, and other appurtenances belonging to it. It was in good condition. It constitutes a part of the direct line from Milwaukie to the
Page 514
Mississippi, and is one of the valuable railroads of the United States. The gross earnings from this ninety-five miles for the year preceding the application to discharge the receiver, as shown by his reports, were about eight hundred thousand dollars; though the reports showed a large falling off in the receiver's receipts of later time.
In addition to the opposition made to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matarazzo v. Hustis
...he was authorized and directed to do. Receivers are officers of the court appointing them. Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 519, 17 L.Ed. 900, where the Supreme Court said, 'The receiver is the officer of the court;' Chicago Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U.S. 236, 10 Sup.Ct. 1017......
-
First Nat Bank of Cincinnati v. Flershem Arzt v. Same Clapier v. Same, Nos. 62
...of the property and preservation of its unity seemed to be required in the public interest. Milwaukee & Minnesota R. Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 17 L.Ed. 900; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21 L.Ed. 447; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Midland R. Co., 117 U.S. 434, 6 S.Ct. 809, 29 L.Ed. 963; Wal......
-
First National Bank of Laramie v. Cook
...Sellers v. Stoffel (Ind.), 39 N. E., 52; Hutchinson v. Rice (La.), 33 So. 57; Schaack v. McKay, 100 Ill.App. 294; R. R. Co. v. Soutter, 69 U.S. 510; State v. Ross, 122 Mo. 435; Minkler v. Sheep Co. (N. D.), 62 N. W., 494.) A court of equity must act upon established principles and through e......
-
Anderson v. Bigelow, No. 9886.
...of the United States for the District of Nevada — and thus became an officer of that court. Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 519, 17 L.Ed. 900; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 81, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568; Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U.S. 223......
-
Matarazzo v. Hustis
...he was authorized and directed to do. Receivers are officers of the court appointing them. Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 519, 17 L.Ed. 900, where the Supreme Court said, 'The receiver is the officer of the court;' Chicago Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U.S. 236, 10 Sup.Ct. 1017......
-
First Nat Bank of Cincinnati v. Flershem Arzt v. Same Clapier v. Same, Nos. 62
...of the property and preservation of its unity seemed to be required in the public interest. Milwaukee & Minnesota R. Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 17 L.Ed. 900; Davis v. Gray, 16 Wall. 203, 21 L.Ed. 447; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Midland R. Co., 117 U.S. 434, 6 S.Ct. 809, 29 L.Ed. 963;......
-
First National Bank of Laramie v. Cook
...Sellers v. Stoffel (Ind.), 39 N. E., 52; Hutchinson v. Rice (La.), 33 So. 57; Schaack v. McKay, 100 Ill.App. 294; R. R. Co. v. Soutter, 69 U.S. 510; State v. Ross, 122 Mo. 435; Minkler v. Sheep Co. (N. D.), 62 N. W., 494.) A court of equity must act upon established principles and through e......
-
Anderson v. Bigelow, No. 9886.
...United States for the District of Nevada — and thus became an officer of that court. Milwaukee & Minnesota Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 510, 519, 17 L.Ed. 900; Stuart v. Boulware, 133 U.S. 78, 81, 10 S.Ct. 242, 33 L.Ed. 568; Union Bank of Chicago v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U.S. 223, 2......