Investment Co. v. Ohio & N. W. R.

36 F. 48, 6 Ohio F. Dec. 122, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2574
CourtUnited States Circuit Court
DecidedAugust 17, 1888
StatusPublished

This text of 36 F. 48 (Investment Co. v. Ohio & N. W. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Investment Co. v. Ohio & N. W. R., 36 F. 48, 6 Ohio F. Dec. 122, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2574 (uscirct 1888).

Opinion

Sage, J.

This cause is before the court upon the petition of the receiver, for authority to borrow $347,577.18, and to issue Ms certificates therefor. Before referring in detail to the petition, it will be necessary to state the condition of tho defendant, the Ohio & Northwestern Railroad Company, and that of its road, as disclosed by the bill, the petition, and by other papers oil filo. The preciso date of the organization of the railroad company does not appear, but it must be within about two years. The first mortgage is dated 13fh September, 1886. The capital stock is $3,500,000. There are outstanding $ 1,200,000 first mortgage bonds, and $512,000 second mortgage bonds. The company is hopelessly insolvent, has never paid any interest on its bonded debt, is wholly without credit, and can raise no money from any source excepting its earnings, which are not, and for more than six months last past have not been sufficient, to pay its operating expenses. Its line of road is 106 miles in length, extending from Idlcwild, a station on the Cincinnati, Lebanon & Northern Railroad, about 3 miles from Cincinnati, to Portsmouth, Scioto county, Ohio; but its track is laid only to SciotoviUe, 5} miles out from Portsmouth, so that the road does not reach either to Cincinnati or to Portsmouth, the terminal points. It has, however, for some time had, at heavy cost, an entrance to Cincinnati over the tracks of the Little Miami Railroad, from Batavia Junction, a distance of some nine miles; and into Portsmouth, from SciotoviUe, over the tracks of the Scioto Valley Railroad. It owns no equipment, locomotives, or cars, hut is operated by leased rolling stock throughout, at charges for rentals too onerous for the company to bear, or the receiver to pay. A portion of its line, extending eastwardly from Idlewild 43 miles to Sardinia, (perhaps beyond, — the papers on file do not show,) was originally the Cincinnati & Eastern Railroad, a narrow-gauge road, and was purchased at judicial sale made by order of the court of common pleas of Clinton county, Ohio. That sale was confirmed February 3, 1887; the order reserving a first lien for the deferred purchase money, of which $56,099.50 remains unpaid. The track, excepting six miles upon this portion of the line, has been widened to [50]*50standard gauge by relaying the narrow-gauge rails, which are old, rapidly wearing out, and of too light weight for use with heavy freight engines; trestles need strengthening, and generally the track is in so bad a condition as to be unsafe. Other particulars relating to the condition of the road will be referred to in considering the receiver’s petition.

The receiver itemizes his petition as follows: (1) $111,904 to meet the expense of purchasing and laying steel rails of sufficient weight, of changing six miles of narrow gauge to standard gauge, and of strengthening trestles, between Idlewildand Sardinia. (2) $35,000 for rails and ties, and for laying the track between Sciotoville and Portsmouth. All the other work, including grading and bridging, has been done at an expense of $49,000. Unless completed, the right of way of this portion of the line will be forfeited, and the labor and material already expended will be lost to the company; whereas upon its completion the company will receive, under an arrangement already made, $3,000 per annum from the Scioto Valley Railroad Company, for its joint use, and will have free access to certain fire-brick works, front which the company now derives a large share of its business, but is compelled to pay 40 per cent, of its freight rate from Sciotoville to Cincinnati for use of track between Sciotoville and Portsmouth, and from $2 to $2.50 switching charges per car for all business out of Portsmouth proper. (3) The receiver asks for $47,243.18 wherewith to cash a list of unpaid vouchers for claims against the company, none of which are liens upon the road. Twenty thousand dollars of these claims are timber and ties furnished the company by parties who were induced by promises of payment to omit the steps necessary to secure statutory liens. The residue of the claims are in large part in favor of regular shippers, whose good-will is valuable, whose hostility would -be injurious to the road. ■ (4) $20,000 to reimburse large bondholders, who advanced that sum to meet arrearages of wages to employes, in December, 1887, and January, 1888, when a strike was threatened, and immediate payment was an absolute necessity. (5) $100,000 for the purchase of the locomotives and cars now used by the receiver in operating the road, and constituting its entire equipment. The annual rental of this equipment is $28,800. Allowing 6 per cent, interest on the purchase price, which is actual cost and interest, the saving to the compaity would be $22,800 per annum. The lessors are willing also to cancel their claims for unpaid rentals amounting, approximately, to $7,000. (6) $4,000 to cover the cost of relaying on the line of the Columbus & Maysville Railroad, which gives to the Ohio & Northwestern a connection with and traffic from Hillsboro, the perfect 42-pound rail taken up from the track of the Ohio & Northwestern. The result will be to cancel a debt of $8,000 due to the Columbus & Mays-ville Company, and give the Ohio & Northwestern Railroad Company enough additional business to pay the cost of the work in three months. (7) $29,430, the price of a piece of land at Red Bank, on the line of defendant company’s road, six miles from Idle wild, purchased by the company; the cash payment of $9,810 for which was advanced to the company, and its note therefor taken. The company’s line passes over this [51]*51tract, which is mortgaged for the deferred payments. The land is especially valuable because of its containing a deposit of gravel available, not oníy for the uses of the road, but for sale. The receiver enumerates advantages and benefits which,, in his opinion, will result to the company and its creditors, by way of curtailing expenses, increasing business, enlarging receipts, and accumulating good-will; but it is unnecessary to particularize them. The receiver files with his petition the consent to the issue of the certificates asked for of the holders of $943,000 of the first mortgage bonds, and of $293,000 second mortgage bonds; leaving $257,000 first mortgage bonds and $219,000 second mortgage bonds for which no consents are filed. No consents of lienholders other than bondholders are filed, and it docs not appear from the bill or petition whether there are any such. The petition was filed Saturday, August 3d, and presented for allowance Wednesday, August 8th, to me, at Asheville, N. C. How many of the non-consenting bondholders, or of other lienholders had notice, does not appear, but none of them were present in person or by counsel. On the evening of the day when the application was presented, the Mercantile Trust Company of New York city, trustee of the first mortgage, telegraphed that it had been advised by telegram of the application, and that it objected to any order which should affect rights of bondholders not joining in the petition. Letters also were received, one dated at Cincinnati, August 6th, from counsel representing parties there resident holding $47,500 first mortgage bonds and $97,000 second mortgage bonds, who object to the issuing of certificates.

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

Related

Wallace v. Loomis
97 U.S. 146 (Supreme Court, 1878)
Kennedy v. St. Paul & P. R.
14 F. Cas. 321 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, 1873)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
36 F. 48, 6 Ohio F. Dec. 122, 1888 U.S. App. LEXIS 2574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/investment-co-v-ohio-n-w-r-uscirct-1888.