Porter v. Pittsburg Bessemer Steel Co
| Decision Date | 27 May 1887 |
| Citation | 30 L.Ed. 1210,7 S.Ct. 1206,122 U.S. 267 |
| Parties | PORTER v. PITTSBURG BESSEMER STEEL CO., Limited, and others |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Petitions for Rehearing from pages 267-280 intentionally omitted]
John S. Cooper, A. C. Harris, W. H. Calkins, and E. W. Tolerton, for petition.
No brief filed in opposition.
The appellees in this case petition for a rehearing. The case was decided at the present term, and is reported in 120 U. S. 649, ante, 741. The application for a rehearing covers all the grounds discussed in the opinion of this court, and others which, though not touched upon in the opinion, were fully considered by the court in arriving at its judgment. Upon all the questions covered by the opinion we adhere to our conclusions, and we see nothing in the special grounds taken in regard to the cases of some of the appellees to warrant a different result from that arrived at on the former hearing. It is proper, however, to notice two of the grouns urged in respect to two of the appellees.
The appellee Irwin claims that, by virtue of the lien laws of the state of Indiana, he recovered a judgment for the amount of his claim against the railway company, which became a lien prior to the lien of the mortgages; and that, notwithstanding an attempted redemption by John C. New, the trustee in the
mortgages, the lien of the judgment remained good (1) because the redemption laws of the state of Indiana did not apply to the case; and (2) because New did not comply with such laws in regard to redemption in such manner as to destroy the lien of the judgment. It is contended on the part of Irwin that the Indiana statute does not authorize a redemption from a sale of railroad property; that New had no lien on the property sold; and that a redemption redeems simply from the sale, and does not discharge the property from the lien, but only postpones any balance remaining due on the lien to the amount paid for redemption.
The decree of the circuit court of Warren county, made in April, 1884, in the suit to foreclose the lien, brought by Irwin, forecloses the lien for $11,815.70, as a lien on the line of the railway for a certain distance in Warren county. In June, 1884, execution was issued for a sale, and on the twelfth of July, 1884, the property was sold by the sheriff to Irwin for $500, and a certificate of purchase was issued to Irwin; stating that he would be entitled to a deed of the property in fee-simple in one year from the twelfth of July, 1884, if the same should not be redeemed by the defendant, or any other person entitled thereto, paying the purchase money, with interest at 8 per cent. per annum before the expiration of the one year. On the tenth of July, 1885, and within the year, New, as trustee in the mortgages, paid to the clerk of the circuit court $539.78, in redemption of the property so sold, that being the amount necessary at that date to redeem the property.
It is very clear that, by the sale of the property on the execution, the lien of Irwin upon the property was exhausted, as a lien superior to the mortgages, upon that part of the railway which was covered by such superior lien. The property redeemed by New was the property sold under the decree in favor of Irwin. The redemption by New did not have the effect to restore the lien of the decree upon the property sold and redeemed. The redemption was not made by the judgment debtor, so as to vacate the sale and reinstate the lien for the balance of the judgment which the purchase money of the sale did not pay. The redemption was made by another and
a subsequent lienholder, who redeemed for his own benefit, and the benefit of those for whom he was trustee, and not for the benefit of Irwin.
This we understand to be the meaning and effect of the statute of Indiana in regard to redemption. Rev. St. Ind. 1881, §§ 770-776. We are not referred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N.W.R. Co.
... ... 701; Coe ... v. Railway Co., 31 N.J.Eq. 105, 130, et seq.; Porter ... v. Steel Co., 120 U.S. 649, 7 S.Ct. 1206; Fidelity, ... etc., Co ... ...
-
Union Trust Co. v. Southern Sawmills & Lumber Co.
... ... See, ... also, Southern Railway v. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 ... U.S. 257, 263, 20 Sup.Ct. 347, 44 L.Ed. 458 ... v. Cowdrey, 11 Wall. 459, 482, 20 ... L.Ed. 199; Porter v. Steel Co., 122 U.S. 267, 7 ... Sup.Ct. 1206, 30 L.Ed. 1210; In re ... ...
-
McKnight v. Parsons
...v. Davis, 33 Neb. 783, 51 N. W. 135, 29 Am. St. Rep. 509;Miller v. Finley, 26 Mich. 249, 12 Am. Rep. 306;Porter v. Steel Co., 122 U. S. 267, 7 Sup. Ct. 1206, 30 L. Ed. 1210; 2 Randolph's Commercial Paper, §§ 1018-1019. The case made by the defendant lacks in this respect the element of noti......
-
McKnight v. Parsons
... ... Rep. 509); Miller v. Finley, 26 ... Mich. 249 (12 Am. Rep. 306); Porter v. Steel Co., ... 122 U.S. 267 (7 S.Ct. 1206, 30 L.Ed. 1210); 2 ... ...