Hammerly v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co.

123 Ala. 596
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedNovember 15, 1898
StatusPublished

This text of 123 Ala. 596 (Hammerly v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hammerly v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co., 123 Ala. 596 (Ala. 1898).

Opinion

McCLELLAN, C. J.

The question in this case is whether a railway employe who has a claim against the railway corporation for services rendered recently before and up to the time of the appointment of a receiver in a foreclosure, suit brought by the mortgage bondholders is entitled to be paid out of the assets of the corporation in the hands of the receiver in priority to the bondholders, it not being shown that any part of the gross income of the company, either during the receivership or prior thereto, has been diverted from the payment of current expenses and appropriated directly or indirectly to the benefit of the .bondholders. This question has been so directly decided in the negative, and upon such thorough consideration and discussion, that we- need do no more here than cite Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235; Drennen v. Mercantile Trust & Deposit Co., 115 Ala. 592.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Fosdick v. Schall
99 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court, 1879)
Drennen v. Merchantile Trust & Deposit Co.
115 Ala. 592 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
123 Ala. 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammerly-v-mercantile-trust-deposit-co-ala-1898.