Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lewis

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtStayton
Citation16 S.W. 647
Decision Date05 May 1891
PartiesTEXAS TRUNK RY. CO. v. LEWIS, Sheriff, <I>et al.</I>
16 S.W. 647
TEXAS TRUNK RY. CO.
v.
LEWIS, Sheriff, et al.
Supreme Court of Texas.
May 5, 1891.

Appeal from district court, Dallas county; R. E. BURKE, Judge.

Fitzhugh & Wozencraft and Bassett & Muse, for appellant. Sawnie Robertson, for appellees.

STAYTON, C. J.


On December 5, 1881, W. F. Thompson instituted an action against the Texas Trunk Railway Company in the district court for Dallas county to recover a debt due him by the company, and to secure it he sued out and caused to be levied, at 12 o'clock M. of same day, a writ of attachment on the "road, road-bed, track, right of way, chartered rights, franchises, and privileges" of the company. The claim of Thompson having been transferred to John Wolston and Charles Vidor, a judgment was rendered in their favor against the company on March 15, 1887, with foreclosure of attachment lien, under which an order of sale issued, and this the sheriff was proceeding to execute by a sale of the attached property when this suit was brought by the Texas Trunk Railway Company to enjoin the sale of the property in obedience to the writ. On November 5, 1881, W. K. Snow and others brought a suit against the railway company in the district court for Kaufman to enforce claims for labor and material alleged to have been furnished by them, to secure which they asserted liens and sought the appointment of a receiver. Before noon on December 5, 1881, the district court for Kaufman county appointed Thomas M. Simpson receiver of the property of the company, but he had not qualified or taken possession of the property at the time the attachment sued out by Thompson was levied, though he subsequently did. Some time during the year 1880 the railway company had borrowed money to construct its road, and had issued bonds therefor, secured by mortgage on the property levied upon under the attachment sued out by Thompson, which were duly recorded in the counties of Dallas and Kaufman as early as June 2, 1880. This mortgage seems to have covered all the property seized under attachment, and to have provided that, in default of payment of interest as it fell due, the right of the mortgagee to enforce it for the entire principal and interest due should exist, and the entire sum secured by the mortgage be deemed due. Default was made on interest due May 1, 1882, and subsequently, and thereupon the mortgagee elected to declare the principal on the bonds to be due. The mortgage for the benefit of bondholders seems to have been made to the International Trust Company, as trustee. At the June term of the district court for Kaufman county for the year 1882, Charles Stepath and other holders of the bonds of the company sought to intervene in the suit filed in that court by Snow and others, but that court refused to permit this to be done; whereupon they filed in that court their petition for intervention, as well as their petition and bond to remove the cause to the circuit court of the United States for the northern district of Texas, after which they filed in that court a transcript of the proceedings in the cause pending in the district court for Kaufman county. At the December term of the circuit court of the United States, Snow and others moved that court to remand the cause to the state court, but the motion was overruled, (16 Fed. Rep. 1,) and the cause remained in that court until its January term, 1885, when it was dismissed, at the costs of plaintiffs therein. After that suit was removed to the circuit court of the United States, the district court for Kaufman county seems to have exercised jurisdiction therein, but what disposition, if any, that court ever made of the case does not appear, though the record before us tends to show that the demands of Snow and the other plaintiffs therein may have been settled in proceedings in the circuit court of the United States now to be referred to. On September 20, 1882, Charles Stepath and others holding bonds of the railway company, for themselves and all other bondholders, filed a bill in the circuit court of the United States, to which the case before referred to had been removed, praying the foreclosure of mortgage given to secure the bonds held by them, the appointment of a receiver and the sale of the mortgaged property; and to this suit the International Trust Company, the trustee, made itself a party. On January 5, 1883, the circuit court of the United States appointed a receiver, who took possession of the property, and operated it, until it was sold under a decree of that court, entered on January 31, 1883, foreclosing the mortgage to secure bondholders; but that decree...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 practice notes
  • Fielder v. Parker, No. 1892
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 17, 1938
    ...as an interference with its jurisdiction. Ellis v. Vernon, etc., Co., 86 Tex. 109, 23 S.W. 858; Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S.W. 647, 26 Am.St.Rep. 776; Riesner v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 89 Tex. 656, 36 S.W. 53, 33 L.R.A. 171, 59 Am.St.Rep. 84; Stewart v. Poinboeuf, 111 T......
  • Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co., (No. 1947.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 5, 1922
    ...74 Tex. 522, 12 S. W. 216 (cited in cases both pro and con); Boner v. Hearne, 75 Tex. 242, 12 S. W. 38; Railway Co. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S. W. 647, 26 Am. St. Rep. 776; Arthur v. Batte, 42 Tex. 159; Cooper v. Mayfield, 94 Tex. 107, 58 S. W. 827; Allen v. Read, 66 Tex. 13, 17 S. W. 115; M......
  • Simmons v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1950
    ...Riesner v. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 89 Tex. 656, 36 S.W. 53, 54, 33 L.R.A. 171, 59 Am.St.Rep. 84; Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S.W. 647, 649, 26 Am.St.Rep. 776; Palmer v. Texas, 212 U.S. 118, 129, 29 S.Ct. 230, 53 L.Ed. 435, 440; Re Schuyler's Steam Tow-Boat Co., 136 N.Y. 169......
  • Long v. Long, (No. 9492.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 24, 1925
    ...W. 115; Bonner v. Hearne, 75 Tex. 248, 12 S. W. 38; McNeil v. Masterson, 79 Tex. 672, 15 S. W. 673; Texas Trunk Ry. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S. W. 647, 26 Am. St. Rep. 776; Blume v. Case Threshing Mach. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 831; Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 241......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
59 cases
  • Fielder v. Parker, No. 1892
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • June 17, 1938
    ...as an interference with its jurisdiction. Ellis v. Vernon, etc., Co., 86 Tex. 109, 23 S.W. 858; Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S.W. 647, 26 Am.St.Rep. 776; Riesner v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 89 Tex. 656, 36 S.W. 53, 33 L.R.A. 171, 59 Am.St.Rep. 84; Stewart v. Poinboeuf, 1......
  • Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co., (No. 1947.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • April 5, 1922
    ...74 Tex. 522, 12 S. W. 216 (cited in cases both pro and con); Boner v. Hearne, 75 Tex. 242, 12 S. W. 38; Railway Co. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S. W. 647, 26 Am. St. Rep. 776; Arthur v. Batte, 42 Tex. 159; Cooper v. Mayfield, 94 Tex. 107, 58 S. W. 827; Allen v. Read, 66 Tex. 13, 17 S. W. 115; M......
  • Simmons v. Superior Court in and for Los Angeles County
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • February 17, 1950
    ...v. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 89 Tex. 656, 36 S.W. 53, 54, 33 L.R.A. 171, 59 Am.St.Rep. 84; Texas Trunk Ry. Co. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S.W. 647, 649, 26 Am.St.Rep. 776; Palmer v. Texas, 212 U.S. 118, 129, 29 S.Ct. 230, 53 L.Ed. 435, 440; Re Schuyler's Steam Tow-Boat Co., 136 N.Y. 169, 32......
  • Long v. Long, (No. 9492.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • January 24, 1925
    ...W. 115; Bonner v. Hearne, 75 Tex. 248, 12 S. W. 38; McNeil v. Masterson, 79 Tex. 672, 15 S. W. 673; Texas Trunk Ry. v. Lewis, 81 Tex. 1, 16 S. W. 647, 26 Am. St. Rep. 776; Blume v. Case Threshing Mach. Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 225 S. W. 831; Priddy v. Business Men's Oil Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 241......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT