Stewart v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 27 March 1902 |
| Docket Number | 23,065. |
| Citation | 117 F. 782 |
| Parties | STEWART v. WISCONSIN CENT. RY. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
By decree of May 30, 1899, the entire property of the defendant company was directed to be sold, and was sold on July 7 1899, to the petitioner, the Wisconsin Central Railway Company. The sale was confirmed, and the purchaser entered into possession on July 18, 1899, and has since continued in possession. The decree provided that the purchaser should assume any unpaid indebtedness or liability of the receivers incurred in the management and operation of the railroad since September 27, 1893, and, upon refusal to pay any such indebtedness or liability established, the court upon the petition of the claimant, would enforce the claim against the property, and for that purpose jurisdiction of the cause was retained, and the right reserved to the court to retake and resell the property to compel payment of such claims. The decree also provided for the giving of notice to all claimants to prove their claims before the circuit court within a time specified, of which notice was to be given, and which time, it is said, expired on February 15, 1900.
Peter Welgos received injuries through the operation of the railway by the receivers on July 1, 1898, and on the 28th of November of that year brought suit against Whitcomb and Morris, the receivers, in the superior court of Cook county, to recover therefor. This cause was removed into the circuit court, for the Northern district of Illinois, and was tried to a jury and upon the trial a request for a nonsuit was allowed. On December 27, 1899, after confirmation of the sale, Welgos commenced another action in the circuit court of Cook county against the receivers, the Chicago Terminal Transfer Railroad Company, the lessor of the Wisconsin Central Company, the Wisconsin Central Company, the Wisconsin Central Railway Company, the purchaser, and the Wisconsin Central Railway Company, charging all such defendants with the ownership of the track, and the use, occupation, and management of the road, and that the injury was caused by the negligence of the employes; and service of process on January 6, 1900, was made upon the Wisconsin Central Railway Company alone. The Wisconsin Central Railway Company now moves the court for an injunction restraining the prosecution of that suit against it.
The purchasing company took this property discharged of all claims against it save as expressed in the decree of sale. The receivers were not formally discharged upon confirmation of the sale and delivery of possession, because such discharge might abate suits pending against them; but they were practically discharged except for that purpose, and for the purpose of accounting. Their management of the property then ceased. As against the purchaser, the court reserved the right to retake and resell the property in default of payment of such claims against the receivers, which the court might adjudge and direct to be paid, and there was appointed a method by which all such claims should be marshaled adjusted, and determined. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trimble v. Kansas City, Pittsburg & Gulf R. Co.
...etc., Co. v. Roanoke, etc., Co., 109 F. 3; State Trust Co. v. Railroad, 110 F. 10; Starr v. Chicago, etc., Co., 110 F. 3; Stewart v. Railroad, 117 F. 782; Farmers, etc., Co. v. Chicago, etc., Co., 118 204; Union, etc., Co. v. Riggs, 123 F. 312; Smith v. Atlantic, etc., Co., 2 Fost. (N. H.) ......
-
Ballew Lumber & Hardware Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company
...did not participate therein. Boyd v. Northern Pac. Ry., 228 U.S. 482; K. C. So. Ry. v. Guardian Trust Co., 240 U.S. 166; Stewart v. Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co., 117 F. 782; State ex rel. v. Reynolds, 209 Mo. 161. Because it appears from the allegations of the petition that the alleged overcharg......
-
Smith v. Jones Lumber & Mercantile Co.
... ... JONES LUMBER & MERCANTILE CO. et al. No. 64a.United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.December 4, 1912 [200 F. 648] ... Miller, ... Mack & Fairchild, of Milwaukee, Wis., ... (C.C.) 44 F. 663; ... Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Norfolk & W.R. Co. (C.C.) 88 ... F. 815; Stewart v. Wisconsin C. R. Co. (C.C.) 117 F ... 782 (Jenkins, C.J.); Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Chicago ... ...
-
Jacksonville Blow Pipe Co. v. Reconstruction Fin. Corp.
...cases, none of which refer to Sargent v. Helton, and in view of the distinction also applicable here pointed out in Stewart v. Wisconsin Central Ry., C.C.N.D.Ill., 117 F. 782, that in the Sargent case the state proceeding had been commenced and the attachment made before the federal action ......