Seacoast R. Co. v. Wood
Decision Date | 28 November 1903 |
Citation | 56 A. 337,65 N.J.E. 530 |
Parties | SEACOAST R. CO. et al. v. WOOD et al. |
Court | New Jersey Court of Chancery |
Suit by the Seacoast Railroad Company and the Atlantic City Railroad Company against R. Francis Wood and others. Decree for complainants.
This bill is filed to obtain a decree that R. Francis Wood holds the legal title to two lots of land in Cape May City, now occupied by the complainant for terminal use. In trust for the Seacoast Railroad Company; and also to obtain an injunction against the further prosecution of an action in ejectment brought by said Wood to dispossess the Atlantic City Railroad Company. The gravamen of the bill is that these two lots were bought by Edward R. Wood, as agent of the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company; that Wood took the title to the lots in his own name; and that the present holders of the legal title to the lots, and mortgagee, are not purchasers for valuable consideration. The Atlantic City Railroad Company are lessees of the Seacoast Railroad Company, and successors to the rights of the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company.
1890. Whatever the purpose in filing two certificates instead of one was, it appears conclusively that those concerned in the venture regarded and treated the two certificates as designed to effect a single purpose, and proceeded to build a road upon that theory. As already remarked, before the first certificate was filed, Mr. Wood began to secure options from landowners for rights of way; not alone between Winslow Junction and Tuekaboe, but also between the latter place and Cape May City. As it was of the utmost importance that property for a terminal in Cape May City should be secured, Mr. lames E. Taylor, who was afterwards secretary of the roads, at the instance of Mr. Wood negotiated for options for the two lots now in question in Cape May City. Mr. Taylor says that he got options for these two lots in the name of the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company. One of these lots belonged to a Mrs. Schellinger and the other to Dr. Mecrey. Whether these options were taken in the name of Mr. Wood or in the name of the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company is not a matter of importance. The purpose of obtaining these options, and subsequently the deeds for the lots, is manifested by the correspondence between Mr. Wood and Mr. Taylor. On October 5, 1899, the date of the incorporation of the first road being November 18th, Mr. Wood wrote to Mr. Taylor concerning the Mecrey, Schellinger, and other properties. He says: On August 9th Mr. Wood wrote Mr. Taylor: These letters were written on the letter head of the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company, of which company Mr. Wood was then treasurer. On October 12th Mr. Wood wrote to Mr. Taylor: On November 20th Edward R. Wood resigned as director and treasurer of the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company, and on November 27, 1889, there was an agreement entered into between that road and Mr. Wood by the terms of which agreement Mr. Wood agreed to build the line of railroad from Winslow Junction to Sea Isle City. This agreement is displayed at length in the opinion of Vice Chancellor Bird in the case of Wood v. Boney (N. J. Err. & App.) 21 Atl. 574, and again in the opinion of Vice Chancellor Pitney delivered in the case of Baker v. Guarantee Trust & Safe Deposit Co. (N. J. Ch.) 31 Atl. 174. It is sufficient for the present purposes to point out that the agreement provides that the railroad company would assist in organizing a railroad from Sea Isle City to Cape May City. The railroad company agreed that any contract it might make for building this Cape May road should be given to Mr. Wood upon the same general terms as contained in the contract of the one then executed. The price to be paid to Wood for building the road to Sea Isle City was $550,000 worth of first mortgage bonds and the same amount of stock, and he was to be paid for building the road from Sea Isle City to Cape May $350,000 worth of stock of the contracting company and the same amount of first mortgage bonds. . The eighth item of the agreement provided that the costs of securing the rights of way should be borne by Wood, and the third section provided that Wood should erect suitable stations. After the execution of the agreement, Wood proceeded in the acquisition of the title to lots for rights of way; and his purpose was evidenced by letters written on November 27, December 5, 12, 18, and 19, 1889, and January 6, 1890, and February 20, March 1, and March 9, 1890. On January 11, 1900, Mr. Wood took a deed from James Mecrey for the Mecrey lot, and on January 17, 1900, from Wm. S. Schellinger for the Schellinger lot. Both deeds were made to Edward R. Wood. The articles of association for the incorporation of the Cape May & Tuckaboe Railroad Company, running from Sea Isle City to Cape May, had not yet been filed. Mr. Wood, on August 1st of the same year, conveyed these lots to one Burleigh, obviously to enable Burleigh to mortgage the property, which Burleigh did by making a mortgage to Wood, trustee, conditioned for the payment of $8,500 in five years. Wood at the same time executed a declaration of trust, in which he declared that he held the said property for the estate of Mary and Julianna Wood, of which estate he, with George and Redmond Wood, were trustees. Wood had taken the money belonging to this estate for the purpose of paying the cash amount of the consideration for these two properties. Burleigh, on August 2d, conveyed the equity of redemption in these properties to Wood, and then Wood conveyed them to R. Francis Wood, the present defendant in this suit. The conveyance was made to R. Francis Wood for the purpose of securing the estate for the money which had been used to pay in part for the properties. Assuming that these properties were bought for the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company, the way in which the complainants are interested in the lots is this: The property and franchises of both roads, namely, the Philadelphia & Seashore Railroad Company and the Cape May & Tuckahoe Railroad, were judicially declared insolvent. A receiver was appointed for each. These receivers sold the property and franchises of each company to the South Jersey Railroad Company. This company in turn became insolvent, and in the course of the proceedings taken its receiver sold its property and franchises to the Seacoast Railroad Company. The Seacoast Railroad Company, on May 2, 1898, leased all its property to the complainant for the term of 999 years.
C. E. Cole and R. H. McCarter, for complainants.
J. H. Gasklll and S. H. Grey, for defendants.
REED, V. C. (after stating the facts). The testimony exhibits Mr. Edward Wood in his relations to these railroads as promoter, director, and contractor. All that he did previous to the incorporation of the first road clearly appears to have been for the use and benefit of both companies when thereafter organized. Even the scheme for executing a contract by which Mr. Wood was to build...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
American Circular Loom Co. v. Wilson
... ... 620, 57 C. C. A. 646, 61 L. R. A. 176; ... Church v. Sterling, 16 Conn. 388; Blake v ... Buffalo Creek R. R., 56 N.Y. 485; Seacoast R. R. v ... Wood, 65 N. J. Eq. 530, 56 A. 337; Trenton Banking ... Co. v. McKelway, 8 N. J. Eq. 84; Galbraith v. Elder, ... 8 Watts (Pa.) ... ...
-
George Wash. Mem'l Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Mem'l Dev. Co.
...principle that the contract of a trustee enures to the benefit of the principal. Von Hurter v. Spengeman, 17 N.J.Eq. 185; Seacoast Railroad Co. v. Wood, 65 N.J.Eq. 530; 56 A. 337; Schenck v. Davis, 134 N.J.Eq. 375, 35 A.2d 681; Huber v. Liptak, 136 N.J.Eq. 515, 42 A.2d 705. So much for the ......
-
Presidio Mining Co. v. Overton
... ... The matter ... referred to was a transaction with Benton Bowers relating to ... the hauling of freight for and the selling of wood to the ... company. The evidence was not forced out of the witness and ... was in no sense a 'confession,' but was related by ... him voluntarily ... Koehler v. Black River Falls Iron Co., 2 Black, 715, ... 17 L.Ed. 339; Wardell v. Railroad Co., 103 U.S. 651, ... 26 L.Ed. 509; Seacoast Railroad Co. v. Wood, 65 ... N.J.Eq. 530, 56 A. 337; H. C. Girard Co. v ... Lamoureux, 227 Mass. 277, 116 N.E. 572; Meeker v ... Winthrop ... ...
-
Federal Land Value Ins. Co. v. Taylor
...it cannot even now repudiate the transaction by which it was secured and retain the property so secured. See Seacoast Railroad Co. v. Wood, 65 N. J. Eq. 530, 56 A. 337. The repudiation of the obligation requires the return of the property. This much seems to be conceded, but the contention ......