American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co.

291 F. 107, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1548
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 25, 1921
StatusPublished

This text of 291 F. 107 (American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. New York Rys. Co., 291 F. 107, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1548 (S.D.N.Y. 1921).

Opinion

MAYER, District Judge.

This is a proceeding by the Eighth Avenue Railroad Company, in which the Eighth Avenue Company prays the court to order the receiver of the New York Railways Company to pay to it the sum of $46,402.41, which is alleged to be the balance of the principal in a certain special account, together with interest from October 1, 1918. The receiver denies that the Eighth Avenue Company has any interest in any specific moneys held by the receiver, and contends that, if the Eighth Avenue Company has any claim regarding the lease of the properties or the fire of 1907, it is a claim in personam for breach of lease against the New York Railways Company, and not a claim in rem against any specific fund.

On November 23, 1895, the Eighth Avenue Railroad Company let its railroad and real estate to the Metropolitan Street Railway Company for a period of 99 years. Receiver’s Exhibit 1. copy on pages 203 to 235 of N. Y. Rys. Receivership Record. Among the plots of real estate conveyed was one running generally 475 feet on Forty-Ninth street from Eighth avenue and 100 feet on Eighth avenue. The re[108]*108mainder of the block between Forty-Ninth and Fiftieth street was also conveyed by the lease, as was another plot on the other side of Eighth avenue. The Eighth Avenue Company’s lease provided for the electrification of its street railways by the lessee! The lease further provided that the buildings on the real estate could be torn down or altered by the lessee provided other buildings of equal value be erected. The full provision in the lease is as follows:

“It is hereby mutually understood and agreed that the lessee shall have the right to alter, enlarge, tear down, rebuild, and reconstruct any of the buildings erected and now situate on any of the lands or real estate owned by the party of the first part and hereby demised, to accommodate the purposes of the railroad hereby demised, or which may become necessary or proper by 'reason, of the substitution of motive power other than horses; but, in the case of the destruction of any of the said buildings, the lessee shall be bound to construct and erect upon the same land sufficient other buildings suitable for the purposes of the railroad hereby demised which shall be at least of equal value with the present buildings and erections thereon.”

The lessee agreed to insure all buildings “in an amount equal to the value of the existing buildings now erected on said lands.” The lease further provided:

“And the lessor agrees that, in case of loss, all insurance moneys payable to or received by it shall be applied to the restoring, rebuilding, or otherwise ■improving the leased property.”

In 1895, at the time of making the original Eighth Avenue lease, the plot of land on Forty-Ninth street and Eighth avenue, comprising areas 1—A, 1-B, and 1-C on the Exhibit A, was occupied by horse car sheds, stables, and a blacksmith shop. Due to the electrification of the Eighth Avenue Railroad Company these buildings were no longer needed for the purposes of running the railroad and accordingly this land was sublet to the New York Electric Yehicle Transportation Company, by lease dated July 30, 1900. Receiver’s Exhibit 2. The lease provided that the premises were to be used solely for the purpose of “housing, storing, and repairing automobiles.” This necessitated the rerpodeling of the buildings to change them from stables into garages, and the lease specifically permitted such alterations. It is a' fair* inference that one of the elements taken into consideration in fixing the rental of this sublease was the fact that the lessee was obliged to make extensive improvements. Most of these were made before January 28, 1907, when a fire occurred which destroyed the building on the central portion of the plot, but a considerable amount was made thereafter. As a result of the fire, insurance was collected from a large number of insurance companies, amounting in the aggregate to $71,424.55. This .constituted the so-called “Eighth Avenue insurance fund,” the balance of which is the subject of the present controversy.

On June 27, 1907, the Eighth Avenue Railroad Company, the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, the New York City Railway Company (the lessee of the Metropolitan system), the Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as trustee under a Metropolitan Street Railway •Company mortgage, and the Morton Trust Company, as trustee under .a Metropolitan Street Railway Company mortgage, made an agreement [109]*109with the Guaranty Trust Company as depositary, wherein it was recited that:

“The parties to this agreement have certain rights and interest in and to the proceeds of the insurance on said building. * * * It is agreed: * * First. The depositary, the party hereunto of the sixth part, shall collect and hold all proceeds of insurance on said building. Second. The depositary shall pay out said proceeds * * * upon the joint written order of the parties hereto of the second, fourth and fifth parts.”

The parties of the second, fourth, and fifth parts were the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, the Guaranty Trust Company of New York, as trustee, and the Morton Trust Company, as trustee. The agreement said nothing about how the proceeds should be used, nor placed any restrictions on the disposal of the fund, except the signature of the Metropolitan Company and its two mortgagees. The contention of the receiver is that by this agreement the Eighth Avenue Company gave up any title, legal or equitable, that it had in the money and gave up all its right of control.

After the fire the receivers of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company spent $25,022.14 improving other property of the Eighth Avenue Railroad Company which was included in the lease to the Metropolitan Street Railway Company and which was not covered by the sublease to the New York Electric Vehicle Transportation Company. They thereupon withdrew from the insurance fund $25,022.14 on the joint signature of themselves and the Metropolitan mortgagees. No question is made as to the propriety of these withdrawals.

In addition to the above expenditures, the Metropolitan receivers expended after the fire on the buildings of the Eighth Avenue Company, for capital improvements, an aggregate amount of $6,867.51. After the fire the New York Transportation Company (the New York Electric Vehicle Transportation Company having changed its name) spent $46,833.10 in capital improvements oh the subplot leased to it. $22,-628.96 was spent putting a roof over one story of the building which had been burned down; $10,152.37 for a sprinkler system, fire doors, etc.; $5,111.71 on masonry, carpentry, and steel work; and the balance on miscellaneous items. It thus appears that a. considerable amount in excess of the fire loss fund was expended after the fire by the Metropolitan Street Railway Company or its sublessee, and this gives rise to the second defense of the receiver, which is that, if the Eighth Avenue Company had any interest in the specific moneys, it was a security interest, which ceased when the Eighth Avenue Company real estate had been improved by an amount greater than the amount of the fire loss fund.

The third contention of the receiver is that, as a result of improvements made, the Eighth Avenue Company was very much better off than it would have been if the Metropolitan Street Railway Company had left the building as stables and a blacksmith shop as they originally were. The so-called Eighth Avenue insurance fund came into the possession of the New York Railways Company.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
291 F. 107, 1921 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-brake-shoe-foundry-co-v-new-york-rys-co-nysd-1921.