Guaranty Trust Co. v. International Steam Pump Co.

Second Circuit

Guaranty Trust Co. v. International Steam Pump Co.

231 F. 594, 145 C.C.A. 480, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1675

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 16, 1916

DocketNo. 218

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 231 F. 594 (Guaranty Trust Co. v. International Steam Pump Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guaranty Trust Co. v. International Steam Pump Co., 231 F. 594, 145 C.C.A. 480, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1675 (2d Cir. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

[2,3] We are satisfied that the directors of the International Steam Pump Company were honestly desirous to keep the corporation a going concern and that they consented to the receiv[604]*604ership under the creditors’ bill filed August 26, 1914, only because their efforts to do so had been unavailing. The situation of the company had been .most precarious for some time past, and the financial situation of the country threatened to be unfavorable to debtors and to borrowers in the future. There is not a vestige of evidence that the Steam Pump Company or its directors colluded with the bondholders or with the common stockholders to .destroy the interest of the preferred stockholders. The trustee of the mortgage acted exactly as it should have done in filing its bill September 2, 1914, and its supplemental bill of foreclosure December 8, 1914, for the protection of the bondholders. There is no reason for disturbing the decree of foreclosure or for interfering with the sale under it. The special master and the District Judge were of opinion that the charges of fraud made in the answer of the New Jersey receiver were wholly unsustained and we agree with them.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

[2,3] We are satisfied that the directors of the International Steam Pump Company were honestly desirous to keep the corporation a going concern and that they consented to the receiv[604]*604ership under the creditors’ bill filed August 26, 1914, only because their efforts to do so had been unavailing. The situation of the company had been .most precarious for some time past, and the financial situation of the country threatened to be unfavorable to debtors and to borrowers in the future. There is not a vestige of evidence that the Steam Pump Company or its directors colluded with the bondholders or with the common stockholders to .destroy the interest of the preferred stockholders. The trustee of the mortgage acted exactly as it should have done in filing its bill September 2, 1914, and its supplemental bill of foreclosure December 8, 1914, for the protection of the bondholders. There is no reason for disturbing the decree of foreclosure or for interfering with the sale under it. The special master and the District Judge were of opinion that the charges of fraud made in the answer of the New Jersey receiver were wholly unsustained and we agree with them.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 F. 594, 145 C.C.A. 480, 1916 U.S. App. LEXIS 1675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guaranty-trust-co-v-international-steam-pump-co-ca2-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack