Kennedy v. St. Paul & P. R.

14 F. Cas. 325, 5 Dill. 519, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1900
CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota
DecidedMay 31, 1878
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 14 F. Cas. 325 (Kennedy v. St. Paul & P. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kennedy v. St. Paul & P. R., 14 F. Cas. 325, 5 Dill. 519, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1900 (circtdmn 1878).

Opinion

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

An application is made by the receiver for authority to complete the unfinished portions of the said railroad, and to issue debentures to raise the means of construction. The situation of the case is peculiar, and even extraordinary. The cause in which the receiver was appointed, as well as the foreclosure cause by the new trustees, is still pending, and it is certain that a final decree cannot be rendered in time to save the forfeitures provided for in the act of the legislature of Minnesota of March 9th, 187S. Unless the road is constructed as required by that act, the rights of the railroad company, as respects the unfinished road, and as respects the lands appertaining thereto, will be forfeited, and the principal security of tlie bondholders secured by the mortgage will be wholly lost The fragmenits of road already completed would, in that event, be comparatively of little value. If the line of the railway is completed, it is clear that the effect will be to make the parts already completed more valuable. The mortgage bonds outstanding greatly exceed the value of the property. Pour-fifths of all the bondholders apply for the order. Not a single bondholder has appeared to oppose it. The trustees in the mortgage, representing all the bondholders, ask that the order be made. A commission appointed by the court has examined the railroad and the lands, and ascertained the wishes of the bondholders, and recommend that the desired authority be given by the court. The only parties not consenting are the holders of stock in the St. Paul and Pacific Company and the First Division Company. But the interests of the stockholders and of the bondholders of the St. Paul and Pacific Company are, in the actual situation of the case, antagonistic, and the stock is of no value. Even the mortgage bonds are worth, in the market, but a few cents on the dollar. The First Division Company, itself hopelessly insolvent, and 'whose road is in the hands of trustees under mortgages, has no substantial interest of value in the matter. The opposition to the order asked for is not of a nature to defeat the application if the order is one which ought otherwise to be made.

I assent, in the fullest manner, to the proposition that a court of equity ought not to enter upon the work of either operating or building a railway, if this can possibly be avoided without the certain and great sacrifice of the rights and securities of the parties in interest. The original order in this case was made upon this principle and upon the exceptional case which the record presented. Kennedy v. St. Paul & P. R. Co. [Case No. 7,706], It is not to be inferred from the report of that case that authority even to [328]*328complete the building of an unfinished line of railway, and to issue debentures for that purpose, is to be conferred without an overwhelming and irresistible necessity. When such authority is conferred, it ought to be guarded with the utmost care.

NOTE. In conformity with the foregoing opinion, the following order was entered: “John S. Kennedy et al. v. The St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. et al. “This cause having come on to be heard on the 18th day of April. A. D. 1878, at Jefferson City, in the state of Missouri, on the application of J. P. Farley, Esq., receiver of the defendant, the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, to be authorized to issue the debentures of said company for the purpose of constructing the uncompleted portions of said railroad, and to sell lands pertaining to the completed portions thereof, and the court, for the purpose of fully advising itself in the premises, having then appointed a commission of examination, to report all the facts necessary to enable the court to judge of such application, and said commission having so reported, and the court being fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ordered: “That the order heretofore made in this cause on the 1st day of August, A. D. 1873, appointing a receiver for said company, and authorizing him, among other things, to issue certain debentures, as modified by an order made herein on the 1st day of September, A. D. 1873, be further modified and supplemented as follows: “1. Said receiver shall issue no debentures, in addition to those already issued, except as hereinafter provided, and only when specially ordered by the court to do so; but those already issued shall continue to have the liens and preferences heretofore secured to them by the orders of this court. “2. Whereas, George Stephen, Donald A. Smith, Norman W. Kittson, and James J. Hill represent and show to the court that they are the equitable owners of $11,400 000 of the $15,-000,000 issue of bonds secured by the extension mortgage of April 1st, 1871, as shown and set forth in an agreement between them, as parties of the first part, and Chemet & Weetjen, Ivirk-hoven & Co., Lippman. Rosenthal & Co., Wurf-bain & Son. Tutein, Nolthenius & De Hann, H. C. Voorhoeve & Co., and Johan Carp, the committee of the Dutch bondholders of the St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company, parties of the second part, being an agreement of twenty-seven articles, dated March 13th, 1878. and which said $11,400,000 of bonds are held by John S. Kennedy & Co. (the plaintiffs herein)., as trustees, as shown in said agreement; and whereas, the said Stephen, Smith. Kittson, and Hill propose to advance and furnish, or cause to be advanced and furnished, the full sum necessary to complete and equip the said extension lines to St. Vincent, and from Melrose at least to Fergus Falls, as required by the act of the legislature of the state of Minnesota, approved March 9th, 1878, in time to save the forfeiture therein provided for, and to secure the land grant to the company, if the court will, in this cause, authorize the receiver to construct and equip the said extension lines on such terms, and on the security of such liens, as will be equitable to themselves and as between themselves and other bondholders and all others concerned in the property and the said mortgage; and whereas, it appears that no foreclosure of said mortgage can be had in time to prevent the forfeitures provided for in said act of the legislature of the state of Minnesota, and that, if the said forfeitures are made, the security of the said mortgage will be, as to the unfinished lines, wholly destroyed; and whereas, the orders hereinafter made are based upon the fundamental consideration and condition that money enough shall be advanced to the receiver fully to build and equip the said extension lines as aforesaid; and whereas, the court has refused to issue debentures as a means of credit in advance of actual construction, or to allow the receiver to incur any indebtedness on his part, as receiver, beyond the money actually advanced: “Now, the said receiver, out of moneys so to be furnished him. and not otherwise, is hereby authorized to proceed to construct and equip the said extension lines at the lowest possible expense and cost in cash, of which he shall keep an exact and minute account, and make monthly reports to the court; and in no event to exceed the rate of $10.000 pe.r mile for such construction, including necessary sidings, station buildings, water-tanks, etc., and a sufficient equipment for the business of said lines.

I have given to the present application great and even anxious consideration. It is the first step that costs. The work of constructing the unfinished lines had better not be entered upon than to enter upon it and fail, leaving the road still unfinished.

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

Related

Bibber-White Co. v. White River Val. Electric R.
115 F. 786 (Second Circuit, 1902)
State of Tennessee v. Quintard
80 F. 829 (Sixth Circuit, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
14 F. Cas. 325, 5 Dill. 519, 1878 U.S. App. LEXIS 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kennedy-v-st-paul-p-r-circtdmn-1878.