Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Forty-Second St.

180 F. 648, 103 C.C.A. 614, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4783
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit
DecidedMarch 28, 1910
DocketNo. 250
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 F. 648 (Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Forty-Second St.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Forty-Second St., 180 F. 648, 103 C.C.A. 614, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4783 (2d Cir. 1910).

Opinions

WARD, Circuit Judge.

When a corporation mortgages its property to secure payment of bonds not due for 100 years, it is reasonable to suppose that it will stipulate for the use of the income of the mortgaged property until default. Likewise, when it leases the mortgaged property for 999 years in consideration of a dividend on its capital ,s'tock to be paid by the'lessee, it is fair to assume that the lessee will stipulate for the enjoyment of the income-of the property until default. And where part of the mortgaged premises consists of a controlling interest in the stock of independent corporations whose property is not affected by the lien of the mortgage, the mortgagee will find it necessary to protect the pledged stock by covenants which will prevent its value from being impaired.

'■ In the case under consideration we have this situation, and default having occurred in payment of rent October 13, 1907, and of interest January 1, 1908, different and inconsistent' arguments are made as to the meaning of the covenants in the mortgage. In 1900 the Third Avenue Railroad Company, the mortgagor, pledged a controlling interest in the stock of the Forty-Second Street Railway Company with the Morton Trust Company, afterwards succeeded by the Central Trust Company, trustee under its mortgage to secure the payment of bonds in the year 2000. At the same time it leased all its property to ■the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, succeeded by the present lessee, the New York City Railway Company, for 999 years.

"■ A settlement of accounts was made, as of April 30,-1907, whereby the Forty-Second Street Railway Company, admitting its indebtedness to the Third Avenue Railroad Company for construction and equipment. in the sum of $6,491,967.44, delivered its note for that amount, with interest at 4 per cent, to ■ avoid unnecessary circuity,' to the trustee of the mortgage, and its note to the New York City Railway Company for a balance of operating indebtedness of $893,433.30 at [651]*6514 per cent. This balance was arrived at by charging the Forty-Second Street Railway Company with interest on said advances for construction amounting to $980,254.92, which appears to be entirely reasonable.

September 24, 1907, the New York City Railway Company was put into the hands of receivers, who were succeeded by the present receiver, W. W. Ladd.

January. 6, 1908, F. W. Whitridge was appointed receiver of the Third Avenue Railroad Company.

February 1, 1908, he was appointed receiver of the Forty-Second Street Railway Company.

May 26, 1908, the receivers of the City Railway Company filed a claim against the Forty-Second Street Railway Company on the above-mentioned note and for a balance of open account of $107,-830.54. This balance was arrived at by charging the Forty-Second Street Railway Company with interest from April 30, 1907, on the note given the Central Trust Company to the amount of $181,053.73.

The receiver of the Forty-Second Street Railway Company denies the validity of these claims on the ground that the New York City Railway Company was 'entitled to no interest at all.

The receiver of the Third Avenue Railroad Company and the Central Trust Company, as trustee, also deny their validity and contend that if valid the New York City Railway Company holds them in trust for the Central Trust Company, trustee of the mortgage of the Third Avenue Railroad Company.

The whole case has been made to turn upon this question of interest. The master and the court below have dismissed the claim of the New York City Railway Company on the ground that, not being entitled to interest, the account between it and the Forty-Second Street Railway Company, with charges for interest struck out, will show the latter to be the creditor instead of the debtor.

The court below has held that because the Forty-Second Street Railway Company was controlled by the New York City Railway Company entries in its books and its giving of notes do not constitute a prima facie case against it. This would be true if the transactions-themselves were unusual or indicated fraud or imposition. But the books were kept in an orderly way, and everything that was done was consistent with the operation of all the companies as one system. It was natural and proper that the majority stockholders of the Forty-Second Street Railway Company should elect its board of directors; that the books of all the companies should be kept in the office of the New York City Railway Company; that the New York City Railway Company should make advances to the Forty-Second Street Railway Company to maintain its premises, as the lease required it to-do. No error or fraud is alleged. Under these circumstances, we think notes given by the Forty-Second Street Railway Company and entries in its books do make a prima facie case against it. Moreover that company is no longer controlled by the New York City Railway Company, but is in the hands of the court, and we assume that the [652]*652receiver will faithfully discharge his duty'by making any proper defense.

The Third Avenue Railroad Company, as lessor, gave to the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, lessee:

“Also all lire benefits and rights arising from all or any contracts, leases or agreements which the party of the first part now has or may hereafter be entitled to; also all the. lands and tenements, above described, and all easements, fixtures, personalty and property of every description of the party of the first part, which franchises, rights and property so leased find demised are subject to the various burdens and conditions by which they are held by the party of the first part.”

And the habendum clause provided:

“And subject to the provisions of this agreement the said party of the first part doth also hereby grant to the party of the second part the control of the expenditure of the moneys belonging to the party of the first part at the time of the taking effect of this lease, which are in the treasury of the party of the first part, whether on deposit or otherwise, and of all fights of action for the collection of money, and also all rights of action for the enforcement of rights or privileges for the construction, maintenance or operation of a railroad which are proper or essential to such construction, maintenance or operation.”

We think that these provisions made the New York City Railway Company, lessee, successor of the Metropolitan Street Railway Company, owner of the note for $6,491,967.44, subject to the lien of the mortgage. It is entitled to the interest on the note under the provision of the mortgage giving the Third Avenue Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, the income of the whole mortgaged premises until default.

“Article seventeenth.

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

Related

In re Prudence Co.
15 F. Supp. 1064 (E.D. New York, 1936)
Kings County Lighting Co. v. Nixon
268 F. 143 (S.D. New York, 1920)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
180 F. 648, 103 C.C.A. 614, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 4783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barber-asphalt-paving-co-v-forty-second-st-ca2-1910.