Pittsburg C. Co. v. W. S. B. R. R. Co.
| Citation | 232 Pa. 578 |
| Parties | Pittsburg Construction Company <I>v.</I> West Side Belt Railroad Company, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 06 July 1911 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
Page 578
v.
West Side Belt Railroad Company, Appellant.
Argued May 1, 1911.
Appeal, No. 34, Oct. T., 1911, by Francis H. Skelding and Henry W. McMaster, Receivers, and the Colonial Trust Company, Trustee, from order of C. P. No. 4, Allegheny Co., Second Term, 1910, No.
Page 579
595, making absolute rule for judgment for want of sufficient affidavit of defense in case of Pittsburg Construction Company, a corporation, v. West Side Belt Railroad Company, a corporation, with notice to Francis H. Skelding and Henry W. McMaster, Receivers of the West Side Belt Railroad Company, and the Union Trust Company of Pittsburg, Trustee, Mortgagee, and the Colonial Trust Company, Trustee, Mortgagee, Terre-Tenants.
Before FELL, C. J., BROWN, ELKIN, STEWART and MOSCHZISKER, JJ. Affirmed.
Page 580
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 581
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 582
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 583
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 584
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 585
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 586
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 587
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 588
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 589
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 590
Thomas Patterson, of Patterson, Sterrett & Acheson, for appellant.—The lien claimed is a secret lien and void as against the bondholders, who bought without notice of the lien: Hart's App., 96 Pa. 355; Kauffelt v. Bower, 7 S. & R. 64; Com.'s App., 4 Pa. 164; Fox v. Seal, 89 U. S. 424.
The Pittsburg Construction Company is estopped from asserting that its relation with the railroad company was that of a contractor: Toope v. Prigge, 7 Daly (N. Y.), 208; Kaehler v. Dobberpuhl, 60 Wis. 256 (18 N. W. Repr. 841); Hidell's App., 9 W. N. C. 212; Garber v. Doersom, 117 Pa. 162.
In so far as the act of 1907 attempts to displace the lien of the bondholders it is unconstitutional. The question of the priorities of the various liens is exclusively a question for the United States circuit court: Central Trust Co. v. Condon, 67 Fed. Repr. 84; Central Trust Co. v. Bridges, 57 Fed. Repr. 753; Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493 (9 Sup. Ct. Repr. 590).
The judgment against the railroad company on the contract is not conclusive against the Colonial Trust Company, trustee, in this proceeding: Central Trust Co. v. Condon, 67 Fed. Repr. 84; Cent. Trust Co. v. Bridges, 57 Fed. Repr. 753; Hassall v. Wilcox, 130 U. S. 493 (9 Sup. Ct...
To continue reading
Request your trial