Central Trust Co. v. Seasongood

130 U.S. 482, 9 S. Ct. 575, 32 L. Ed. 985, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1770
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided April 15, 1889·No. 224·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

130 U.S. 482

9 S.Ct. 575

32 L.Ed. 985

CENTRAL TRUST CO.
v.
SEASONGOOD.

April 15, 1889.

The principal questions upon this appeal arise out of an order directing the receiver in this cause to issue to certain parties his certificate of indebtedness for the amount of claims held by them against the property of which he was directed to take possession. The history of those claims, and the circumstances under which the above order was made, will appear from the following statement:

Jacob Seasongood, Louis Seasongood, and Bernard G. Stall, by written agreement made August 29, 1876, bargained and sold to the Miami Valley Narrow-Gauge Railway Company, (whose name was afterwards changed to the Miami Valley Railway Company,) for the purpose of its road-way, three adjoining lots in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the sum of $18,500, of which $2,000 was agreed to be paid in 30 days, and $16,500 at the end of 10 years; the latter sum to bear interest at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum, payable quarterly. The company also agreed to pay the taxes and assessments on the property. The vendors retained the legal title, but bound themselves to convey the premises upon the performance by the vendee on its part of the agreement of purchase. The company was put into immediate possession, and proceeded to construct its road over the lots. On the 1st of November, 1876, it mortgaged the road, its property, and franchises to secure bonds aggregating $500,000. In an action brought in the court of common pleas of Warren county, Ohio, that mortgage was foreclosed, and the mortgaged property sold. The title ultimately passed to the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, a corporation created under the laws of Ohio, with authority to construct and operate a railroad from Cincinnati, through the counties of Hamilton, Butler, and Warren, to Waynesville in the latter county. That company, by mortgage in the nature of a trust-deed, executed November 17, 1880, conveyed its property, rights, and franchises to the present appellant, as trustee, to secure bonds aggregating $1,000,000. By a decree rendered by the superior court of Cincinnati, at general term, in an action brought May 2, 1881, by Jacob Seasongood, Louis Seasongood, and Bernard G Stall against the Miami Valley Railway Company, the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, the trustees in the mortgage of November 1, 1876, the Central Trust Company, (the trustee in the mortgage of November 17, 1880,) and others, it was found that there was due to the plaintiffs in that action, under the above agreement with the Miami Valley Railway Company, for interest and taxes, the sum of $7,806.22; and it was adjudged that for the payment of the above sum, with interest, together with the balance of the principal sum, 'the plaintiffs have the first and best lien upon the lots of land described in said agreement;' that unless such sum, and the costs of the action, were paid within 90 days, the master 'shall, after the court has ascertained and determined the dimension and location of so much of the lots of land aforesaid as are not needed for the railroad, cause such portions of said lots as he shall find as aforesaid to be unnecessary for the railroad to be appraised and advertised, and sold upon execution at law;' and that, 'in the event that the sum realized from the sale of the portions of the lots of land aforesaid shall be insufficient to pay the sum of money and interest and costs last aforesaid, the entire railway, as owned and operated by the said Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, shall be sold as an entirety.' To this decree the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company and the Central Trust Company excepted, the latter corporation tendering its bill of exceptions, which was signed, sealed, and made part of the record. By a further decree, rendered October 3, 1883, the court found that certain portions of the lots, described by metes and bounds, were not necessary for the roadway of the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, and ordered them to be appraised and sold separately, and, if they did not sell for enough to pay the above judgment, interest, and costs, then to sell the road as theretofore ordered. To that decree the defendants also excepted.

The present suit was instituted in the circuit court of the United States, by the Central Trust Company of New York, on the 14th day of August, 1883, (the day after it filed its answer in the above suit in the superior court of Cincinnati,) against the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company, the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, the Spring Grove, Avondale & Cincinnati Railway Company, and Grenville D. Braman. The bill set out the above mortgage or deed of trust of November 17, 1880; the lease by the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, for the term of 99 years, of the tracks, road-bed, rights of way, property, franchises, etc., of the Spring Grove, Avondale & Cincinnati Railway Company, and the mortgage executed May 25, 1881, by the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company to the Central Trust Company, of its property, rights, and franchises, for the payment of $1,000,000 of bonds theretofore issued by the Spring Grove, Avondale & Cincinnati Railway Company, secured on its road, the lien of the latter mortgage to be second only to that of the mortgage of November 17, 1880; a mortgage by the Cincinnati Northern Railway Company, of May 25, 1881, to the same trustee, of its property, rights, and franchises, to secure an issue of $1,000,000 of income bonds, payable out of the net earnings of the last-named railway company; and the consolidation of the above railroad companies under the name of the Toledo, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad Company, and the assumption by the consolidated company of the debts secured by each of said mortgages. The prayer of the bill was that all of said mortgaged property be sold, the proceeds to be applied to the payment of the bonds and coupons secured by the first of the above mortgages, and the balance, if any, to be paid to the Central Trust Company for the holders of bonds secured by the second and third mortgages; and that, until such sale was had, a receiver be appointed of all the property and premises embraced by the first mortgage, with power to maintain and operate the Cincinnati Northern Railway, including the road leased from the Spring Grove, Avondale & Cincinnati Railway Company, to collect rents, etc. Upon the motion of the Central Trust Company an order was passed, October 20, 1883, appointing a receiver, who was directed to take possession of, maintain, and operate the Cincinnati Northern Railway, 42 miles in length, constructed and to be constructed, and also the Spring Grove, Avondale & Cincinnati Railway Company. On the 8th of December, 1883, the following order was made by the circuit court in this cause:

'It appearing to the court that the superior court of Cincinnati, in general term, in cause No. 2,350, wherein Jacob Seasongood, Louis Seasongood, and Bernard G. Stall are plaintiffs, and the Central Trust Company of New York and others are defendants, has found that certain real estate belonging to said plaintiffs, situate in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio, and being lots 13, 14, and 15 of S. Kemper's subdivision, in section 7, town.

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

Central Trust Co. v. Seasongood, 130 U.S. 482, 9 S. Ct. 575, 32 L. Ed. 985, 1889 U.S. LEXIS 1770 (1889).

130 U.S. 482 (Central Trust Co. v. Seasongood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins.
156 So. 498 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1934)
Staley v. Espenlaub
43 F.2d 98 (Tenth Circuit, 1930)
State Ex Rel. Daniel v. Broad River Power Co.
153 S.E. 537 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Texas Co. v. Central Fuel Oil Co.
194 F. 1 (Eighth Circuit, 1912)
Slaughter v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad
125 Tenn. 292 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1911)
United States v. Eisenbeis
112 F. 190 (Ninth Circuit, 1901)
Coltrane v. Templeton
106 F. 370 (Fourth Circuit, 1901)