Sears v. Greater New York Development Co.
Decision Date | 29 June 1931 |
Docket Number | No. 2535,2536.,2535 |
Citation | 51 F.2d 46 |
Parties | SEARS et al. v. GREATER NEW YORK DEVELOPMENT CO. GREATER NEW YORK DEVELOPMENT CO. v. SEARS et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
F. H. Nash, of Boston, Mass. (Richard Wait, of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for Sears and others.
Hugh D. McLellan, of Boston, Mass. (Clarence F. French, Alexander R. Smith, Jr., and French & Smith, all of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for the Development Company.
Before BINGHAM, ANDERSON, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
This is an action to recover a sum as interest on bonds after their maturity, issued by the defendant company, and on the interest coupons attached thereto after their alleged date of maturity.
In 1901 the defendant company, organized to engage in the business of buying, selling, and developing real estate in New York City, issued two series of bonds; one, and the primary or senior issue being dated June 1, 1901, in denominations of $1,000 to run for twenty years with interest at 5 per cent., payable semiannually; and a second or junior series in denominations of $500 dated June 2, 1901, and also maturing on the 1st day of June, 1921. The junior series was denominated "Five Per Cent Income Bonds" and were used as a bonus in disposing of the senior issue, one bond of the junior issue of the par value of $500 being offered with each $1,000 bond of the senior issue.
Both series of bonds with their interest coupons attached were made payable to the Old Colony Trust Company in Boston, and the plaintiffs' testatrix subscribed through a Boston broker's office for twenty-five of the senior issue and received income bonds of the aggregate par value of $12,500.
The senior issue held by the plaintiffs' testatrix has been fully paid with interest, though not on its maturity date.
The issues here arose over the construction of the provisions of the income bonds and the law as to the rate of interest to be computed on any overdue principal of the bonds, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interest on the overdue coupons.
The provisions of the income bonds over which the disputes arose are:
Each interest coupon attached to the income bond except as to numbering reads as follows:
Interest on the senior issue was paid regularly until 1918, when the receipts of the company and business conditions did not warrant the further payment of interest at that time or the payment of the principal at maturity. No interest was paid on the income bonds until after the senior issue was fully paid with all interest due on April 15, 1924.
The first issue being paid, the defendant was then able to devote all receipts to the payment of the junior issue. In April, 1925, it had sufficient funds to warrant the passing of the following vote by its board of directors:
On May 11, 1925, the defendant notified the plaintiff and other holders of income bonds by a circular letter of the following tenor:
"In accordance with said vote the said coupons numbered `1' for the first installment of interest on said bonds will be paid as set forth in said vote on the first day of June, 1925, at the office of the Old Colony Trust Company, 17 Court Street, Boston, Mass., as said coupons are severally presented and surrendered for cancellation."
Following these votes, other votes were passed as to coupons Nos. 2 and 3 and a vote to pay the principal of the income bonds on January 5, 1926.
A dispute immediately arose as to the amount of interest due on the income bonds. The defendant proposed to pay on June 1, 1925, 112½ per cent. of the face of the income bonds as interest from December 1, 1902, to June 1, 1925, to holders of coupon No. 1. The plaintiffs protested, but finally by agreement on January 5,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Central States Life Ins. Co. v. Lewin
... ... 451, 101 S.W. 6; 6 R. C. L. 887; ... Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 198 ... F. 721; 21 R. C. L. 1031; Washburn v. Williams, 10 ... 422, sec. 279; Roswell Drainage Dist. v ... Parker, 53 F.2d 793; Sears v. Greater New York Dev. Co., ... 19 F.2d 651, Id. 51 F.2d 46; Hamilton ... ...
-
In re Chicago, RI & P. Ry. Co.
...163 U.S. 269, 272, 16 S.Ct. 967, 41 L.Ed. 155; Roswell Drainage Dist. v. Parker, 10 Cir., 53 F.2d 793, 797; Sears v. Greater New York Development Co., 1 Cir., 51 F.2d 46, 49, certiorari denied 284 U.S. 668, 52 S.Ct. 42, 76 L.Ed. 565. Thus the Supreme Court said, in Aurora City v. West, supr......
-
Lusk State Bank v. Town Council of Lusk, 1914
... ... New York and was bound thereby. Sec. 22-1616, W. R. S. It was ... stipulated by ... Bates County, 163 U.S. 269, 41 L.Ed ... 155, 16 S.Ct. 967; Sears v. Greater New York Development ... Co., 51 F.2d 46; Perry v ... ...
-
Thompson v. Getz
...305; Brannon v. Hursell, 1873, 112 Mass. 63; Sears v. Greater New York Development Co., D.C. D.Mass.1927, 19 F.2d 654, affirmed 1 Cir., 1931, 51 F.2d 46. See Lamprey v. Mason, 1889, 148 Mass. 231, 234-235, 19 N.E. Had the notes in the case at bar read "with interest thereon at the rate of t......