Branch v. Jesup

106 U.S. 468, 1 S. Ct. 495, 27 L. Ed. 279, 16 Otto 468, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1566
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 15, 1883
Docket81
StatusPublished
Cited by48 cases

This text of 106 U.S. 468 (Branch v. Jesup) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Branch v. Jesup, 106 U.S. 468, 1 S. Ct. 495, 27 L. Ed. 279, 16 Otto 468, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1566 (1883).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case arises upon a bill filed by Morris K. Jesup, as surviving trustee, for the foreclosure of a deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage, bearing date Dec. 20, 1867, given by the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company of Georgia to said Jesup and one Gardner (since deceased) to secure the payment of certain bonds of- the company to the amount of §2,000,000 payable in 1897 with interest. The bill was filed Feb. 15, 1877, and on the 19th of the same month receivers were appointed to take charge of the mortgaged property, being the railroad of the company with its rolling-stock and machinery. A supplemental bill was filed on the 20th of April, 1877. . The only defendant named. in either bill was the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company. The premises sought to be foreclosed and sold were, first, the main line of the company’s road, extending from Savannah southwesterly and westerly to Bainbridge, in Georgia, a distance of about two hundred and thirty-seven, miles; secondly, a branch road, extending from Dupont to the Florida line, about thirty-two miles, connecting, thirdly, with a short road in Florida, extending to Live Oak' in that State, which the company held and operated under a lease; fourthly, a branch road about fifty-eight miles in length, extending from Thomasville, on the main line, northerly to Albany, Georgia; fifthly, two other small branches at Savannah, one connecting the main line with wharves on the Savannah River, and the other connecting it with the Savannah and Charleston Rail *470 road. The Thomasville branch was purchased from the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company in 1868 (shortly after the giving of the mortgage in suit) for the purpose of extending the line to Albany; which branch was subject to certain bonds and mortgages issued by the latter company, having a lien paramount to the mortgage in suit. The other branches were, in like manner, severally subject to certain prior mortgages, given for purchase-money or construction, and having a paramount lien. The bill conceded the priority of these several liens.

The defendant answered, specuymg the liens on its property prior to that of the mortgage, and insisting that, it would be inequitable to foreclose apd sell at that time, although consenting to the appointment of receivers.

On the 22d of April, 1878, Branch, Sons, & Co. and others (who are appellants here) petitioned for, and obtained, leave to intervene pro interesse mo, claiming to be preferred creditors of the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company as to the proceeds and earnings of the South Georgia and Florida Railroad; that is, the branch from Thomasville to Albany. By amendment to the petition the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company was also made a party, and a prayer was added to have declared void the sale of the said branch road, and, for its restoration to the South Georgia and Florida. Railroad Company. .

By their petition of intervention the appellants insisted that the lien of the mortgage sought to be foreclosed does not cover the branch aforesaid: that the petitioners and others are holders of certificates of special guaranteed seven per cent stock of the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company to the amount of some $300,000, of which the petitioners own $56,100; that these certificates were issued by the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company under a contract with the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company, dated January, 1869, for the construction of its road from '¡Thomasville to Albany; a copy of which contract and certain modifications of it, and a copy of one of the certificates, were annexed to the petition. The petitioners further contended that the earnings of that branch road, if kept by themselves, vrould be sufficient, not only to pay the *471 interest on the preferred bonds of the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company, but to pay the interest on .said certificates; that the guaranteed scrip was given for the purchase of tbe South Georgia and Florida Railroad, and was distributed among the contractors who built it in. payment for their labor; that it is in effect the promissory notes of the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company, and that the holders could proceed by attachment if the property of that company were not in the hands of receivers ; and, after making further averments as to the solvency of the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company, if it stood alone, unconnected with the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company, the petitioners' prayed,, for themselves and the other holders of certificates, to be examined pro interesse suo, touching ' their alleged paramount claim upon the proceeds of the South Georgia and Florida Railroad after- payment of interest on its bonds, and for an order directing such examination before the master, and for other directions.

In the amended petition the petitioners averred that the original holders of the certificates of preferred stock before mentioned were subscribers to the capital stock of the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company, and paid their subscriptions by work done on the road, for which they received the said certificates of preferred stock in the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company, and that the present holders are bona fide purchasers of said scrip, except in some instances where the original holders have not; parted with their scrip; and they alleged that when the contracts between the two companies were executed it was supposed that they had power to enter into the same; but that they are now advised that the contracts were ultra vires, and void, and they prayed a rescission and cancellation thereof: but if the court should decree that the contract only amounted to a lease of the road (which they conceded would not be ultra vires'), then they prayed that it may be rescinded for non-compliance with its terms, and the inability of the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company to comply therewith. But if the court should think there was a valid contract of sale, then they repeated their prayer to be decreed to have a first lien on the proceeds of the road after the mort *472 gages executed thereon by the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company, and for a separate sale of that, road subject to said mortgages.

The first contract referred to in the petition bore date June 19, 1868, and provided that the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company should complete its road from Thomasville to Albany, and. turn it over in sections, as completed, to the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company, and that when completed to Albany, the stock of the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company should be incorporated with the stock of the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company, and that interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on the actual cost of the road should be paid as well before such incorpóration of stock, as on said- -st'ock after its incorporation ; and that when the stock should be thus incorporated, all the rights, privileges, and franchises of the South Georgia and Florida Railroad Company, so far as related to the road from Thomasville to Albany, should vest in the Atlantic and Gulf Railroad Company, and said road should be a branch of the Atlantic and Gulf Road. This contract was modified by another contract made Jan.

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

Related

TCW Special Credits, Inc. v. F/V Kassandra Z
4 Am. Samoa 3d 154 (High Court of American Samoa, 2000)
Tri-State Electric Cooperative v. City of Blue Ridge
77 S.E.2d 547 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1953)
South Western Railroad v. Benton
58 S.E.2d 905 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1950)
American Surety Co. v. City of Akron
95 F.2d 966 (Sixth Circuit, 1938)
Jennings v. Studebaker Sales Corp. of America
170 A. 626 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1934)
Rawlings v. Rawlings
58 S.W.2d 735 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1933)
French v. Long
42 F.2d 45 (Fourth Circuit, 1930)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bingham
35 F.2d 503 (Sixth Circuit, 1929)
Ohio Public Service Co. v. State Ex Rel. Fritz
149 N.E. 129 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1925)
Inscho v. Mid-continent Development Co.
146 P. 1014 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1915)
Tippett v. Barham
180 F. 76 (Fourth Circuit, 1910)
Breslin v. Fries-Breslin Co.
58 A. 313 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1904)
Weed v. Gainesville, Jefferson & Southern Railroad
46 S.E. 885 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1904)
Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. v. Hare
16 Ohio C.C. Dec. 197 (Wyandot Circuit Court, 1904)
Northwestern National Life Insurance v. Hare
5 Ohio C.C. (n.s.) 348 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1904)
Central Trust Co. v. Washington County R. Co.
124 F. 813 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine, 1903)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 U.S. 468, 1 S. Ct. 495, 27 L. Ed. 279, 16 Otto 468, 1882 U.S. LEXIS 1566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/branch-v-jesup-scotus-1883.