Columbia Gas & Electric Co. v. Knickerbocker Trust Co.

152 A.D. 5, 136 N.Y.S. 840, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8470
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 11, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 152 A.D. 5 (Columbia Gas & Electric Co. v. Knickerbocker Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Columbia Gas & Electric Co. v. Knickerbocker Trust Co., 152 A.D. 5, 136 N.Y.S. 840, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Opinions

Scott, J.:

The controversy relates to the proper construction and effect to be given to a sinking fund provision contained in a mortgage executed by plaintiff to defendant as trustee.

On or about February 23, 1907, the plaintiff duly executed and delivered to defendant, as trustee, a certain mortgage to secure an issue of bonds aggregating $25,000,000, each of said bonds to be dated January 1, 1907, and payable, unless sooner redeemed, on January 1, 1927. As to certain of the bonds so' to be issued a sinking fund provision was inserted in the mortgage, which has given rise to the controversy. It reads as follows:

“Article III.
“Section 1. For the purpose of providing a sinking fund for the redemption of bonds issued hereunder, the Grantor agrees that it will pay to the Trustee on the first day of January in each year, beginning with the year 1910, an amount which shall equal, in the following years, the following percentages of the entire amounts of bonds which shall have been issued and outstanding on said dates for the purpose of the purchase or construction and acquisition of gas wells, gas [7]*7fields, pipe lines, pumping stations, natural gas properties and accessories thereto, to wit: 1910—4%; 1911 — 4%; 1912—4%; 1913 — 5%; 1914—5%; 1915 — 5%; 1916 — 5%; 1917—6%; 1918 — 6%; 1919 — 6%; 1920 — 6%; 1921 — 7%; 1922—7%; 1923—7%; 1924—7%; 1925 — 8%; 1926—8%. Provided-, always, that, as respects bonds issued for the purposes in this section mentioned subsequent to January 1st, 1910, such additional sinking fund shall be created each year as will redeem all of such bonds' so issued subsequent to January 1st, 1910, on' or before January 1st, 1927.
“ Said sinking fund may, at the election of the Grantor, be (a) left with the Trustee at interest; (b) used for the redemption of bonds of the issue secured by this indenture; (c) invested in other securities approved by the Trustee.
“In the event the Grantor elects to invest said sinking-fund moneys in bonds issued hereunder, it shall, in writing, so notify the Trustee, and the Trustee shall give notice that proposals for the acquisition of bonds hereunder for redemption through the sinking fund will be received at its office in the City of New York at a date to be fixed in said notice, which notice shall be published at least once a week for four successive weeks in a daily newspaper published in the City of New York and also in a daily newspaper published in the cities of Cleveland and Cincinnati, Ohio. The lowest of all such offers shall be accepted by the Trustee in their order until said sinking fund is exhausted, but no purchase by the sinking fund shall be made by the Trustee at a price greater than par and accrued interest. In the event sufficient offers are not received to exhaust the amount deposited in the sinking fund, then a sufficient number of bonds shall be drawn by lot by the Trustee to exhaust said sinking fund. In the event any registered bond or bonds are drawn for redemption, the holder of such registered bond or bonds shall be notified by letter to present his registered bond or bonds for redemption.
“ Notice by like publication as above provided shall be given to the holders of unregistered bonds so drawn.
“ Ail sinking fund moneys on hand at the maturity of' the bonds issued hereunder shall be applied to the payment thereof at par and accrued interest.”

[8]*8There were issued by the plaintiff under'the mortgage bonds to-the' amount of $17,413,500, of which only $2,841,500. were issued for the purchase or construction and acquisition of gás wells, gas fields, pipe lines, pumping stations, natural gas properties and accessories thereto. Consequently only this amount of bonds were to be provided for by the special sinking fund provision quoted above. The remaining, bonds were issued for other purposes. At various times between January 1, 1911., and January 1, 1912, there were purchased, redeemed and canceled, in accordance with the provisions of the mortgage, bonds to the amount of $3,693,000, of which bonds to the amount of $1,660,000 were bonds issued for the special purposes hereinbefore enumerated, and consequently bonds intended to be provided for by the special sinking, fund created under the provisions of section 1 of article 3 of the mortgage, quoted above. Of the moneys used to purchase and retire the bonds above mentioned the sum of $227,330, and no more, was provided by the percentage specified to be paid under said section 1 of article 3, the remainder of the moneys being derived from the proceeds of the sale of property released from the lien of the mortgage, and not Comprising any of the classes of. property mentioned in said section 1 of article 3.

• The situation presented, therefore, is as follows: The total issue of bonds for the purposes mentioned in section 1 of article 3 of the mortgage and intended to be secured by the sinking fund provided for by that section is $2,841,500. Of these bonds $1,660,000 have been purchased, redeemed and canceled, to the purchase of which the sinking fund created by said section 1 has contributed $227,320, the moneys to purchase and redeem the remaining $1,422,680 having been derived from other sources.

The question presented for solution is upon what sum shall the percentages to be paid in the future be calculated. The plaintiff’s contention is that it is required to pay to the trustee only the specified percentage upon the bonds which may in any year be outstanding, and unredeemed, while the defendant contends that the percentage should continue to be paid, during the whole term of the bonds, upon the amount issued and which shall have been at any time outstanding, making no [9]*9deduction or allowance for bonds which may have been redeemed and canceled. Both parties refer to and rely upon the language used in section 1 of article 3 to the effect that the amount to be paid in each year shall be a percentage “of the entire amounts of bonds which shall have been issued and outstanding on said dates.” The reading given to this phrase by the respective parties differs widely. The plaintiff reads it as if it were written a percentage in each year “of the entire amounts of bonds which shall have been issued and are then outstanding.” The defendant’s reading is that the percentage to be paid in each year shall be “of the entire amounts of bonds which shall have been issued and shall have been outstanding on said dates.”

In attempting to construe the disputed phrase it is our duty to ascertain what it was that the parties intended to effect by the provisions of the mortgage in which the phrase appears, and having ascertained that to give to the disputed phrase, if possible, such a construction as will carry out the intention of the parties. Unquestionably what the parties had in mind was to create a special sinking fund to secure the payment and retirement of the bonds issued for the particular classes of property described in section 1 of article 3, and they undoubtedly intended that the sinking fund so provided should be sufficient to pay and retire all such bonds at their maturity, for the percentages required to be paid in each year, when added up will be found to aggregate one hundred per cent, and as to any such bonds issued after January 1, 1910, it is specifically provided that an additional sinking fund shall be created each year which will be sufficient to redeem all of such bonds on or before their maturity on January 1, 1927.

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

Related

New York Trust Co. v. Portland Railway Co.
197 A.D. 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
152 A.D. 5, 136 N.Y.S. 840, 1912 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-gas-electric-co-v-knickerbocker-trust-co-nyappdiv-1912.