Graham v. J. D. Spreckels & Bros.

248 F. 66, 160 C.C.A. 206, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1410
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJanuary 7, 1918
DocketNo. 2904
StatusPublished

This text of 248 F. 66 (Graham v. J. D. Spreckels & Bros.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham v. J. D. Spreckels & Bros., 248 F. 66, 160 C.C.A. 206, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1410 (9th Cir. 1918).

Opinion

ROSS, Circuit Judge.

We are, in our opinion, precluded from considering the merits of the numerous original controversies between the principal parties to this suit, or the various technical defenses interposed by the defendants thereto, because of the agreement entered into between them on the 8th day of June, 1899. For years prior to that time they had had extensive dealings regarding the building of a short line of railroad from Marshfield, on Coos Bay, Or., to Myrtle Point in that state, and which was designed to be extended to [67]*67Roscburg, and in the acquiring and development of certain coal lands in the vicinity and in connection, with certain lands donated by the citizens of Marshfield as a bonus to aid in the building of the road. Out of those dealings various disputes arose, resulting in certain lawsuits that were pending at the time the agreement of June 8, 1899, was entered into. One of those suits was brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon, by Graham against the Beaver Hill Coal Company, which held the title to the coai lands, in which company both Graham and the J. D. Spreckels & Bros. Company were stockholders, and in which suit various charges and counter charges respecting- the management of that property and tile true status of the indebtedness between Graham and the J. D. Spreckels & Bros. Company were involved, and in which suit a receiver of the property of the coai company was appointed by the court in which the suit was commenced and pending. Another of the suits was one brought in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, Cal., against Graham, for an accounting of his management of the propelty of the Beaver Hill Coal Company. Another of the suits was one brought by the J. D. Spreckels & Bros. Company in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon, against the Coos Bay, Roscburg & Eastern Railroad & Navigation Company, of which Graham was president and a large stockholder, and which company he caused to be organized for the purpose of building the railroad that has been mentioned. In that suit a receiver was also applied for and appointed. Another suit pending at the time of the making of the contract of June 8, 1899, between Graham and the Spreckels Bros. Company, was that then on trial, and which had been on trial for nearly one month in the superior court of the city and comity of San Francisco, where it was brought by the J. D. Spreckels & Bros. Company against Graham, for the foreclosure of the liens given by him to them as security for his indebtedness to them, on the various properties he by the present suit claims the right to redeem, consisting of his interest in the Marshfield lands that have been referred to, o£ his stock in the railroad company mentioned, and of certain bonds of the latter company owned by the pledgor, and certain life insurance policies. In that condition of the dealings between Graham and the Spreckels Bros. Company and of the then pending litigation between them growing out of those dealings, the agreement of June 8, 1899, was executed.

The contentious on the part of the appellant are: First, that the contract is on its face a mortgage, pledge, or security, and not a conditional sale of Graham’s properties; and, secondly, that the contract was made under such circumstances of duress and oppression that equity will hold it to be a mortgage, pledge, or security, with a right on his part to an accounting and the right to redeem the properties, and, in view of the claim of notice of the facts on the part of the ap-pellee Southern Pacific Company, to a judgment. We are unable to take the view of the contract so contended for, but, on the contrary, are of the opinion that it was rightly construed by the learned judge of the court below. It shows upon its face, in our opinion, unmistak[68]*68able evidence that it was not intended by the parties to be a mortgage, pledge, or security. Graham is named as party of the first part thereto, and J. D. Spreckels & Bros. Company, a corporation, as the party of the second part, and it starts with the express declaration that the agreement is made “for the purpose of completely adjusting all matters of difference between themselves and between each of them, and the Beaver Hill Coal Company, a corporation, and the Coos Bay, Rose-burg & Eastern Railroad & Navigation Company, a corporation.”

Its first provision is, in. effect, that the receivership suit brought by Graham against the Beaver Hill Coal Company, and then pending in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon, should be at once dismissed upon the settlement of the account of the receiver, the parties to bear their own costs; that an order be at once made requiring the receiver to render such account, with provisions not necessary to be stated regarding the payment of fees, costs, and charges, after which the receiver should surrender to the coal company all of its property, which company'should remain in the possession thereof during the life of the contract of June 8, 1899, without interference in any manner by Graham; that the Spreckels Bros. Company should cause proper steps to be taken by the coal company, so long as it controlled the same, for the care and preservation of the said property of the coal -company during the life of the contract of June 8,- 1899, with certain provisions not important to be mentioned, relating to the payment of certain fees, costs, and expenses.

The second provision of the contract of June 8, 1899, provided for the immediate dismissal of the suit brought by the Beaver Hill Coal Company against Graham in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, the parties to bear their own.'costs,,and for the delivery to Graham, upon the signing of the contract of June 8, 1899, of a release executed, by the Beaver Hill Coal Company, releasing and discharging him of and from any and all claims and demands which it then had'or claimed to have against him.

The third provision required the immediate dismissal of the suit then pending in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Oregon, brought by the J. D. Spreckels & Bros. Company, against the Coos Bay, Roseburg & Eastern Railroad & Navigation Company, the parties thereto to bear their own costs.

The fourth paragraph provided for the immediate entry in the suit brought by the Spreckels Bros. Company against Graham, then pending and on trial in the superior court of the city and county of San Francisco, of a judgment in favor of the Spreckels Bro-s. Company against him, for the sum of $532,162.52, together with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from the 1st day of, April, 1898, both in United-States gold coin, and providing for a sale of the pledged securities sought to be foreclosed in that suit, with the usual provisions for the docketing of a judgment against the judgment debtor for any deficiency which might exist after the sale of the collaterals specified in the original complaint in that suit, and that all proceedings to enforce said judgment be stayed for the period of six months after the date of the said agreement of June 8, 1899.

[69]*69By the fifth clause of that contract the parties thereto designated and appointed the Bank of California, a corporation, as trustee for them, to hold the properties and written instruments therein and hereinafter mentioned, for the purposes subsequently specifically set out in the contract of June 8, 1899, and to perform the duties therein-after also specifically prescribed.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
248 F. 66, 160 C.C.A. 206, 1918 U.S. App. LEXIS 1410, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-j-d-spreckels-bros-ca9-1918.