Central Trust Co. of New York v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co.

Seventh Circuit

Central Trust Co. of New York v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co.

104 F. 420, 43 C.C.A. 616, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 1900

DocketNo. 668

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 104 F. 420 (Central Trust Co. of New York v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Central Trust Co. of New York v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co., 104 F. 420, 43 C.C.A. 616, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928 (7th Cir. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

GrROSSOUP, Circuit Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:

The facts of this ease are substantially identical with those of Central Trust Co. of New York v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co., 104 Fed. 418, in the matter of the intervening petition of Emerson Chamber-lin, just decided, except in that case the proposing intervener was a stockholder, while in this case he is a holder of a second mortgage bond.

It appears that Baldwin, the appellant, has, at all times, been personally active in the litigation leading to the decrees; and has had personal knowledge of what was in progress. As a second mortgage bondholder, he had the alternative right, either to participate equally with others in the final plan of reorganization, or, standing out, to see to it that the road was sold for its full value. He does not show in his petition that he has been excluded from any opportunities afforded to other second mortgage bondholders in the reorganization plan: nor does he satisfactorily show that, had the conspiracy complained of never existed, the road would have remained unsold, or would have sold for a greater sum than was realized. Under these circumstances, the court rightly refused leave to file the intervening petition.

The decree will be affirmed.

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

GrROSSOUP, Circuit Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court, as follows:

The facts of this ease are substantially identical with those of Central Trust Co. of New York v. Peoria, D. & E. Ry. Co., 104 Fed. 418, in the matter of the intervening petition of Emerson Chamber-lin, just decided, except in that case the proposing intervener was a stockholder, while in this case he is a holder of a second mortgage bond.

It appears that Baldwin, the appellant, has, at all times, been personally active in the litigation leading to the decrees; and has had personal knowledge of what was in progress. As a second mortgage bondholder, he had the alternative right, either to participate equally with others in the final plan of reorganization, or, standing out, to see to it that the road was sold for its full value. He does not show in his petition that he has been excluded from any opportunities afforded to other second mortgage bondholders in the reorganization plan: nor does he satisfactorily show that, had the conspiracy complained of never existed, the road would have remained unsold, or would have sold for a greater sum than was realized. Under these circumstances, the court rightly refused leave to file the intervening petition.

The decree will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 F. 420, 43 C.C.A. 616, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 3928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-trust-co-of-new-york-v-peoria-d-e-ry-co-ca7-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack