Union Trust Co of New York v. Souther

Decision Date12 March 1883
Citation107 U.S. 591,27 L.Ed. 488,2 S.Ct. 295
PartiesUNION TRUST CO. OF NEW YORK v. SOUTHER and another
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United Court for the Southern District of Illinois

This appeal was taken because of a difference of opinion between the circuit judge and the district judge, holding the circuit court, as to a matter decided, and the facts on which the questions certified depend may be stated as follows:

On the seventh of October, 1871, the Cairo & St. Louis Railroad Company mortgaged its property, franchises, tolls, incomes, and profits to the Union Trust Company of New York to secure an issue of bonds amounting in the aggregate to $2,500,000. Default was made in the payment of interest falling due October 1, 1873, and semi-annually thereafter. On the sixth of December, 1877, the trust company filed its bill in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois to foreclose the mortgage. In the bill it is, among other things, averred that the company is insolvent; 'that many and large claims exist against said railroad company of the character known as floating debt; and that unless a receiver is appointed * * * great, irreparable damage to said bondholders will ensue, and the property will be liable to be greatly depreciated, and to be involved in useless litigation; and your orator and its bondholders will lose the benefit thereof as a security for the payment of said bonds.' Upon this allegation it was prayed that the 'court will appoint a receiver according to the course and practice of this court, with the usual powers of receivers in like cases.'

As soon as the bill was filed a receiver was appointed, and in making the appointment the court, of its own motion, entered the following order: 'And said receiver, after paying the expenses of operating, maintaining, and repairing said railroad and property, and after making such other payments herein authorized as are or may be necessary for the conduct of such receivership, shall pay and discharge all amounts due and owing by said railroad company for labor, or supplies, that may have accrued in the operation and maintenance of such railroad property within six months immediately preceding the rendition of this decree.'

In 1876 the railroad company paid $3,000 to the beneficiaries under the mortgage on account of their expenses, to a much larger amount, in keeping an agency in the United States, and in connection with the forbearance which they had given the company in respect to overdue interest. Previous to the appointment of the receiver none of the current income of the company, except this single amount, had been paid to the bondholders.

When the order in respect to debts for labor and supplies was entered, the court instituted no special inquiries in respect to the use which had been made of the income prior to that time.

The receiver thus appointed took possession of the property and operated the road until the end of the year 1881, and after a sale had been perfected under a decree of foreclosure. During the receivership the net earnings of the road, after paying all operating expenses, exceeded $200,000. The whole amount was, however, under the orders of the court, with the consent of the trust company, from time to time, expended 'in purchasing additional grounds, rolling-stock, etc., and in making permanent repairs and improvements upon said railroad property, instead of discharging therewith the claims of [against] the railroad company for labor, materials, and supplies' during the six months immediately preceding the appointment of the receiver, and when the property was finally sold over $65,000 of these debts remained unpaid. Among them was one to E. E. Souther & Brother amounting to $532.14 for supplies. On the ninth of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
66 cases
  • Fordyce v. Omaha, Kansas City & E.R.R.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • 11 avril 1906
    ... ... Locomotive Works v. Continental Trust Co., 108 F. 5, 47 ... C.C.A. 147; Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v ... Bowen, 111 U.S. 776, ... 4 Sup.Ct. 675, 28 L.Ed. 596; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois ... M.R. Co., 117 U.S. 434, 6 Sup.Ct. 809, 29 ... 286, 1 Sup.Ct. 140, 27 L.Ed. 117; ... Trust Co. v. Souther, 107 U.S. 591, 2 Sup.Ct. 295, ... 27 L.Ed. 488; Burnham v. Bowen, 111 ... ...
  • Illinois Trust & Savings Bank v. Doud
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • 21 novembre 1900
    ... ... diversion. ' Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U.S. 776, 4 ... Sup.Ct. 675, 28 L.Ed. 596; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois ... M.R. Co., 117 U.S. 434, 6 Sup.Ct. 809, 29 L.Ed. 963; ... Wood v ... superior in equity to the lien of a prior mortgage ... In ... Trust Co. v. Souther, 107 U.S. 591, 593, 595, 2 Sup.Ct ... [105 F. 145] ... 27 L.Ed. 488, it was held that the ... ...
  • Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Kansas City, W. & N.W.R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • 21 novembre 1892
    ...and the chancellor should so mold his order that, while favoring one, injustice is not done to another. And see Trust Co. v. Souther, 107 U.S. 591, 2 S.Ct. 295. 3. The trustee in a railroad mortgage represents the bondholders in all legal proceedings carried on by it to enforce the trust. T......
  • Boston and Maine Corp., In re
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 6 octobre 1980
    ...the "diversion" principle expressed in Fosdick without losing sight of the separate Miltenberger approach. Union Trust v. Souther, 107 U.S. 591, 2 S.Ct. 295, 27 L.Ed. 488 (1883), allowed a pre-receivership supply claim on Fosdick "diversion" grounds; but the Court noted also that the receiv......
  • 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