Baetjer v. Registrar of Property of Caguas

55 P.R. 550
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedNovember 10, 1939
DocketNo. 1053
StatusPublished

This text of 55 P.R. 550 (Baetjer v. Registrar of Property of Caguas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Baetjer v. Registrar of Property of Caguas, 55 P.R. 550 (prsupreme 1939).

Opinion

Mr. Chife Justice Del Toro

delivered the opinion of the Court.

H. N. Baetjer, C. K. Bowie. A. IT. S. Post, H. E. Boyce, H. E. Henneman, J. A. Stevenson and L. Naetzker, trustees collectively known as Eastern Sugar Associates, a trust, Rave appealed to this Court' from a decision of the Registrar of Caguas, of May 15, 1939, refusing to record the cancellation of a certain mortgage. They allege:

“1. That on April 27, 1939, the appellants presented in the Registry of Property of Cagnas deed No. 33, executed on April 21, 1939, before Notary Guillermo E. González in regard to the protocolization of a deed executed in the City of Montreal, Dominion of Canada, on July 15, 1938, before Notary Mister Robertson Welton Gibb, by the Montreal Trust Company in favor of The Porto Rico Railway Light & Power Co.
“2. That in. said deed . . . there was cancelled, in regard to certain properties ... a mortgage constituted by the Porto Rico [551]*551Railway Light & Power Co. in favor of Tbe Montreal Trust Co. by deed No. 30 executed on June 9, 1917, to secure tbe sum of $5,000,000 principal, annual interest at 8 per cent plus $100,000 to cover tbe costs, expenses and attorney’s fees.
“3. That tbe appellants presented in tbe Registry of Property deed No. 33 . . . with tbe sole purpose of cancelling tbe mortgage referred to in regard to certain realty, which was appellants’ property.
“4. That on May 15, 1939, tbe respondent registrar refused to record ... on tbe grounds alleged in bis decision” ... to wit:
”... that it appears from tbe registry that pursuant to an agreement of tbe Executive Committee of tbe Montreal Trust Co. of January 16, 1917, it was declared that tbe mortgage should be understood as executed in favor of tbe Holders of the bonds, represented by said Montreal Trust Co., as tbe mortgage was constituted, and tbe Montreal Trust Co. having appeared in tbe preceding deed of cancellation to cancel tbe mortgage constituted to secure tbe mortgage bonds, it not appearing from tbe same deed of cancellation that said company is tbe bolder of such mortgage bonds nor that such mortgage bonds are duly cancelled in accordance to law; with tbe defect of not having credited tbe bolding of tbe mortgage bonds by the Montreal Trust Co. in tbe sense that tbe same have been cancelled by tbe notary according to law.”

Appellants further allege that they feel aggrieved by the decision and in a separate pleading state m extenso their reasons for it, which reasons are substantially as follows:

“The reading of tbe terms of tbe bond, of tbe mortgage and of tbe record in tbe registry which are accompanied herewith, clearly discloses that tbe mortgage was not constituted to individually secure each bond, thus changing them into mortgage bonds, as provided by Section 153 of tbe Mortgage Law ... (it being) tbe intention of the parties ... to create tbe mortgage directly in favor of the trustee and to create a trust over tbe mortgage whose beneficiaries are those who turn out to be holders of tbe bonds. Thus, tbe security for the bonds is tbe agreement of the trustee to constitute tbe mortgage in favor of tbe holders of tbe bonds. Tbe trustee has certain powers and obligations expressly granted and imposed upon him in tbe mortgage deed and tbe . . . holder of tbe bond knows that be does not acquire a mortgage in bis favor but a certificate of a mortgage in favor of a trustee.
[552]*552“The purpose entertained in leaving in the hands of a trustee the power to cancel the mortgage is a sound one. This type of mortgage is used by large corporations and public service companies which are in need of making loans for large amounts under conditions of time and interest that cannot be obtained from banking institutions. A company which issues bonds for $5,000,000 divided in bonds of $100 each and which secures them with a jportgage over all its real and personal property, should not be bound, every time that it deems it convenient to its better interests to dispose of part of its property, to obtain the unanimous consent of fifty thousand bond holders in order that the conveyance be effected free of encumbrances. To avoid this, a trustee is appointed in the deed; a mortgage is constituted in his favor and he is granted the faculty to cancel it. Usually banking institutions of high economic solvency and whose commercial standing in the community is a guarantee for the investment which the future bond holder may make are appointed trustees.”

Let us examine the document.'

It appears from the mortgage deed executed before Notary Public P. Amado Rivera on June 29, 1917, in this city of San Juan, that the Porto Rico Railway, Light & Power Co., owner of the properties which today belong to the appellants, as well as of others, mortgaged them to secure obligations to bearer to be issued for the amount of five million dollars in the manner and under the conditions set forth in the document.

Charles S. Jenner appeared on behalf of the Company, and Richard Gilmore Allen as agent for the Montreal Trust Co., subsequently designated as the Trustee. The powers and faculties of the appearing parties are embodied in the deed • which contains a complete description of the mortgaged properties, among them, properties Nos. 58, 50, 60, 61 and 62 which are the ones afterwards sold by the Company and which today belong to the appellants.

On page 53 of the document we find the following:

“That it is the intention of tbe parties hereto that the said mortgage or morgages to be executed by the said.Railway Company in favor of the said Trustee in accordance with the forms and requirements of the laws of Porto Rico shall be registered in the name of [553]*553the said Trastees in Porto Rico and shall be held as security for the payment of the said bonds issued hereunder, and the said additional sum of one hundred thousand dollars and that the sa:d bonds, through the medium of this mortgage and of each and every mortgage and. other instrument supplemental hereto which may be executed as herein provided, are to be secured in accordanc with the laws of Porto Rico by all the property, rights and franchises now owned or hereafter acquired by the said Railway Company which may be lawfully mortgaged under said- laws. ’ ’

It is then stated:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 P.R. 550, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baetjer-v-registrar-of-property-of-caguas-prsupreme-1939.