State of Iowa v. Old Colony Trust Co. of Boston, Mass.
Citation | 215 F. 307 |
Parties | STATE OF IOWA et al. v. OLD COLONY TRUST CO. OF BOSTON, MASS., et al. |
Decision Date | 01 April 1914 |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
In a suit to foreclose a mortgage given by the Ft. Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company to secure the payment of a large issue of bonds, the court below, on the petition of the receivers appointed in that case, joined in by the railroad company itself, by the Old Colony Trust Company, complainant in the foreclosure suit, and by the American Trust Company an intervener in that suit and trustee in a second or junior mortgage given by the railroad company to secure an issue of $3,500,000 of refunding bonds, on December 7, 1912, made an order directing the receivers to dismantle and abandon a stretch of about 27 miles of the road in their possession extending from Goddard near its southeastern extremity to Des Moines Junction and to sell and dispose of the rails, ties and other movable property constituting the roadbed along that stretch and also to sell as an entirety so much of the line of road as lies between Colfax by way of Goddard and Newton. From this order the state of Iowa, the railroad commissioners of that state, and some individual patrons along the line of the road prosecute an appeal.
Prior to the filing of that petition, the state of Iowa joined by several patrons of the road had filed a petition to compel the receivers to continue the operation of the line sought to be abandoned. The petition was heard by the court on voluminous evidence taken, and overruled. At that hearing the court found that there was not sufficient public patronage on that line to justify its continued operation, but ordered the receivers to continue its operation in a limited way for a period of four weeks, and that for a period of 90 days special efforts should be made to sell or lease the line to some party or parties who would operate it; and if neither of these expedients proved successful that an application for its abandonment would be considered. The parties seem to have acquiesced in this order. No appeal was taken from it. Neither of these expedients proved successful, and the present petition of the receivers to abandon followed petition of the receivers to abandon followed.
The petition stated that the main line of road extending from Des Moines through Des Moines Junction to Rockwell City and other places had been constructed, extended, and reconstructed so as to form at the time the petition was filed a continuous connected system operated by electricity of about 125 miles; that the line extending from Des Moines Junction southeasterly to Goddard and thence to Newton had never been reconstructed like the balance of the system so as to be operated by electricity, but was operated by steam; that it was in a dilapidated and unsafe condition with ties rotten and bridges out of order; that to repair it so as to operate it by steam would require an expenditure of $125,000, and to repair and equip it for operation by electricity would require an additional amount of $275,000; that the receivers had no money and no means for raising the money for either such purpose; that there were few patrons only residing or doing business on this steam line that could not be accommodated by other lines of road constructed and operated in that region; that there was little public necessity for the operation of this line; and that the attempt to do so would imperil the successful operation of the balance of the system for which there was a great public necessity.
The petition stated that a part of this line located near its southeastern extremity extending from Colfax to Newton by way of Goddard, a distance of about 14 miles, was by reason of the fact that it could be used as a connection between a Des Moines interurban line and Newton, of some value above its junk or dismantled value, and might be sold for its reasonable value to the interurban line.
The prayer was that the petitioners might be authorized to dismantle and abandon the line of road between Des Moines Junction and Goddard and dispose of the salvage as best they could and that they might be authorized to sell the short line between Colfax, via Goddard and Newton, and that the court would order a proper and equitable disposition of the proceeds of such sales. There was also a prayer for general relief.
The state of Iowa by its Attorney General and the railroad commissioners of that state and some residents along the line sought to be abandoned, intervened and joined issue with the petitioners on the averments of the petition and pleaded affirmatively that there was an implied contract between the state and the original railroad company which constructed the line of road sought to be abandoned, that it should be perpetually operated, and that on the assurance that it would be perpetually operated certain persons had made donations and subscriptions for the construction of the road, and for that reason estoppel arose against its abandonment.
The issues so joined were submitted to the court 'on the evidence and on the argument of counsel'; but no such evidence is preserved in the record. We therefore cannot enter upon any original consideration of the testimony introduced before the trial court. All we have are the pleadings and facts found and incorporated in the order and decree of December 7, 1912, appealed from in this case.
The question therefore is whether on the pleadings and facts found the District Court erred in ordering the dismantling and abandonment and the sale and disposition respectively of the two portions of the line in question.
The decree discloses the following facts: On June 4, 1910, when the foreclosure suit was instituted, the Ft. Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company was hopelessly insolvent. There were then outstanding bonds secured by the mortgage being foreclosed amounting to $3,500,000 in face value. There had been expended by the Ft. Dodge, Des Moines & Southern Railroad Company and the Newton & Northwestern Railroad Company, its predecessor, in the way of construction and reconstruction of the system of road, the aggregate sum of $5,146,189. There never had been net earnings available to pay interest on the mortgage debt or any return on the investment. Under orders of the court efforts had been made by the receivers and by Robert Ryan, one of the attorneys of patrons of the road residing along its line who had been appointed special master for that purpose, to sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of the line of road sought to be abandoned to some person or company that would operate it, but such efforts had proven ineffectual.
The decree then in the language of the trial court proceeds as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
...... well stated in Gates v. Boston, etc., Co., 53 Conn. 333, 342, 343, 5 A. 695, 699:. . ... the corporation stand charged primarily with this trust. The. large sovereign powers given by the state to ... authority.". . . See. State of Iowa v. Old Colony Trust Co., 215 F. 307,. 131 C. C. A. 581, ......
-
In re Chicago Rapid Transit Co.
...v. Kurn, 8 Cir., 91 F.2d 118; Id., 8 Cir., 98 F.2d 394; Crawford v. Duluth Street Ry. Co., 7 Cir., 60 F.2d 212; State of Iowa v. Old Colony Trust Co., 8 Cir., 215 F. 307, L.R.A.1915A, Whatever the differences in phraseology of the various sections, the reasoning of the Supreme Court in its ......
-
In re Central Railroad Company of New Jersey
...254 U.S. 513, 520, 41 S.Ct. 193, 65 L.Ed. 380; State ex rel. Cunningham v. Jack, 113 F. 823; s. c. 145 Fed. 281; Iowa v. Old Colony Trust Co., 215 F. 307, 312 (8 Cir.); Northern Pacific R. R. Co. v. Dustin, 142 U.S. 492, 499, 12 S.Ct. 283, 35 L.Ed. 1092; Commonwealth v. Fitchburg R. R. Co.,......
-
Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky v. Hatchett
......See. Mercer County v. Provident Life & Trust Co., 72 F. 623, 19 C.C.A. 44, and Provident ... portion of its road, under any state of case, can be. exercised only with the consent ... Fitchburg R. R. Co., 12 Gray (Mass.) 180; Sherwood. v. Atlantic & D. R. Co., 94 ...283, 35. L.Ed. 1092; and State of Iowa v. Old Colony Trust. Co., 215 F. 307, 131 ...747], 42 Am.St.Rep. 295; Gates v. Boston R. Co., 53 Conn. 333, 343 [5 A. 695].". . . ......