Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company v. Cromwell
| Decision Date | 01 October 1875 |
| Citation | 91 U.S. 643,23 L.Ed. 367 |
| Parties | MISSISSIPPI AND MISSOURI RAILROAD COMPANY v. CROMWELL |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Submitted by Mr. George G. Wright and Mr. R. P. Lowe for the appellant, and by Mr. John N. Rogers for the appellee.
The bill in this case was filed in the court below by the appellee, Cromwell, against the appellants, the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company, and Muscatine County, of the State of Iowa, to compel the former to transfer to the complainant on its books, and to issue to him a certificate for, seventeen hundred and fourteen shares of its capital stock standing in the name of Muscatine County, which stock the complainant claims to have purchased at an execution sale made by the marshal of the United States for the District of Iowa.
It is conceded that one James F. Harrison of New York, in October, 1867, recovered a judgment in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa against Muscatine County, for $6,500, upon the coupons attached to certain bonds issued by that county in 1854, being a portion of $150,000 of bonds issued in payment of its subscription for said stock; and that under an execution on said judgment in October, 1868, the marshal assumed to levy on said stock, and on the 23d of December, 1868, sold the same at public auction in the city of Des Moines; and that the complainant, Cromwell, became the purchaser for the sum of $50; and that the marshal executed to him a bill of sale accordingly.
The appellants question the validity of the levy made by the marshal, on the ground that the stock was not located in Iowa, but in the city of New York, and could not be levied on in the district of Iowa. Without attempting to decide this point, we will proceed to the examination of other grounds of defence more directly bearing upon the title to equitable relief.
The certificates of the stock had been deposited, in June, 1866, with the Union Trust Company in the city of New York, in pursuance of an agreement by which the stockholders and bondholders of the Mississippi and Missouri Railroad Company had arranged for a formal judicial sale of the railroad of said company under the foreclosure of a mortgage to the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad Company. By this agreement, the stockholders consenting and depositing their stock as aforesaid were to receive sixteen per cent of the par value thereof, either in money or in the bonds of the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad Company; making the amount to be received by the county of Muscatine for its stock about $27,400, with interest from Dec. 1, 1865. The deposit of the stock held by the county under this arrangement entitled it to this sum. In this state of things, certain creditors of the railroad...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Atlantic Coast Line Co v. State of Florida State of Florida v. United States 8212 1935
...are in a court of equity. Tiffany v. Boatman's Institution, supra; Willard v. Tayloe, 8 Wall. 557, 19 L.Ed. 501; Miss. & Mo. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 91 U.S. 643, 645, 23 L.Ed. 367; Deweese v. Reinhard, 165 U.S. 386, 390, 17 S.Ct. 340, 41 L.Ed. 757. The right that equity declines to further may ......
-
Bankers' Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Sloss, 6 Div. 511.
...policy may exert an influence in the solution of this problem. Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. 173 ; Miss. & Mo. R. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 91 U.S. 643 ; Moon v. Crowder, 72 Ala. Danforth v. Phil. & C. M. Railway Co., 30 N. J. Eq. 12. " And even if such contract be lawful, and, ......
-
M. Witmark & Sons v. Fred Fisher Music Co.
...Approach to Problems of Evidence in The Administrative Process, 54 Harv.L.Rev. (1942) 364, 403-405. 3a Cf. Mississippi & Mo. R. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 91 U.S. 643, 645-646, 23 L. Ed. 367; Randolph's Ex'r v. Quidnick Co., 135 U.S. 457, 459, 10 S.Ct. 655, 34 L.Ed. 4 The defendants seem not to be......
-
Beauchamp v. Bertig
...parties, where he had purchased the same for a totally inadequate consideration, with a view to obtaining an unconscionable advantage. 91 U.S. 643; 135 457; 165 U.S. 386; 91 U.S. 206; 108 U.S. 218; 70 F. 376; 85 F. 231; 69 F. 740; 98 F. 872. When a court of a sister State has assumed jurisd......