McTighe v. Keystone Coal Co.

99 F. 134, 39 C.C.A. 447, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4125
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedJanuary 23, 1900
DocketNo. 20
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 99 F. 134 (McTighe v. Keystone Coal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McTighe v. Keystone Coal Co., 99 F. 134, 39 C.C.A. 447, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4125 (3d Cir. 1900).

Opinion

GRAY, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the decree of the United States for the Western district of Pennsylvania dismissing exceptions filed by James M. Bailey to the report of the master [135]*135appointed to distribute a fund realized from the foreclosure of a mortgage of coal situate in Pennsylvania, and West. Virginia, given by the Keystone Coal Company, Limited, a limited partnership association under the laws of Pennsylvania, to secure its certain coupon bonds aggregating §275,000. The Keystone Coal Company, Limited, a joint-stock association, organized under the act of assembly of Pennsylvania approved June 2, 1874, and its several supplements, for the purpose of raising money wherewith to carry on its business of the mining, transportation, and sale of coal, sold and delivered 550 of its bonds, aggregating $275,000, dated April 1, 3879, payable April 1, 3887, bearing (5 per cent, interest, and having semiannual interest coupons attached. To secure these bonds the coal company executed a mortgage of its coal property, situate in Washington county, Pa., and Brooke county, W. Va., to the Safe-Deposit Company of the City of Pittsburg, as trustee for the bondholders. By its bonds the coal company promised to pay the principal debt on April 1, 3887, and to pay the interest semiannually on April 1st and October 1st in each year, “upon presentation and surrender of the annexed coupons as they severally fall and become due”; and it stipulated that, in the event of default in payment of any interest coupon for six months, the principal and interest might be made due and payable immediately in the manner provided by the mortgage. The mortgage provided, in effect, in article 1, that, in case default he made in the payment of any semiannual installment of interest, and the same remain unpaid for six months, or in case default be made for six months in the payment of any taxes, assessments, or other governmental charges on said premises, the lien whereof might or could be held prior to the lien of this mortgage, and in cast; default be made in the payment ,of the principal of said bonds, when due, then, in any and every such case of default, it should be lawful for the trustee for the time being, personally or by his attorneys or agents, to enter the said premises, and “to have, hold, possess, and enjoy, operating the said coal underlying said described premises, and to mine, take, and carry away the same,” and to collect, and receive all rents, revenues, incomes, issues, and profits of the said association, and from all coal mined out of and from said, premises, and, after deducting therefrom the expenses of (altering and managing said property, to apply the balance thereof, first, to the payment of all overdue interest on the said bonds, with interest thereon, in the order in which said interest shall have become due; and, second, to the payment of interest accruing after such default and entry by the trustee, and during its possession, without, preference between bondholders; and, if any surplus remains after these payments, the same to be paid to the treasurer of said association. Article 2 of the mortgage provides for the issuing of a scire facias upon default in the payment of any semiannual interest which shall remain unpaid for six months after the same shall become due and be demanded, upon written demand by the bondholders, and for the prosecution of the same to judgment, with leave to take out execution for the amount of said interest, and, in case of any subsequent default, with leave to take [136]*136out another' execution for the collection of the same. The Keystone Coal Company, Limited, paid in full to all, except a few, of the bondholders, the semiannual interest coupons which matured in 1879, 1880, 1881, and on April 1, 1882. James M. Bailey is one of the bondholders who did not receive payment for his coupons maturing prior to the general default in October, 1882. The reason was that there was not enough money in the treasury of the company at the various interest periods to pay all coupons, and some coupon holders were paid in full in preference to the appellant and a few others. Of these unpaid coupons maturing prior to October, 1882, the appellant owns an aggregate of $14,157. Some of these coupons were detached from their bonds, and were bought by the appellant from the original holders at various times, he paying full value therefor. The trustee under the mortgage never proceeded to foreclose the same. In 1897, McTighe, a citizen of New York, and a bondholder, filed his bill in the circuit court for the Western district of Pennsylvania, praying an account, a foreclosure of the mortgage, or sale, and a receiver. The court appoint.ed the Safe-Deposit & Trust Company (the trustee named in the mortgage) receiver of the mortgaged property, and directed it to take possession thereof. By its final decree the court ordered the trust company, as receiver and trustee, under the terms of the mortgage, and also in pursuance of the order and decree of the court, to offer the mortgaged property at public sale, and sell the same. In its said decree the court made a finding of fact that only part of the interest coupons maturing prior to April 6, 1882, were paid by the mortgagor, some such remaining unpaid, and directed an account to be stated of the amount due. on account of said bonds, and appointed W. B. Blair, Esq., master, to state such account, and to determine all disputes of the holders of the various bonds and coupons, and to determine the respective rights and priorities of each to share in the purchase money derived from the sale of the property and paid into the treasury of the court. $29,750 was realized from the sale of the mortgaged property. The master found the facts as to the payment of interest coupons and the amount and classes of coupons owned by Bailey as above stated. Bailey ■claimed, under the terms of the bond and mortgage, to be allowed, out of the fund realized, payment in full for the unpaid interest coupons maturing prior to October 1, 1882, as above stated, prior to the allowance of any dividend on the principal of said bonds, and also prior to other coupons maturing subsequent to the said ;date of general default in the payment of interest coupons. The 'master disallowed this claim, and reported a schedule of distribution, allowing all bond and coupon holders to recover a proportionate part of said fund, based upon the aggregate amount of bonds and interest coupons owned by each, respectively, without •any priority or preference in respect of coupons which matured and were unpaid prior to the general default in the payment of interest, and which were owned by Bailey and others, belonging to the various classes of which the holders of part had been paid in full by the company. Bailey filed exceptions to the master’s re[137]*137port, alleging that the master erred in not allowing his claim to a preference in distribution. After argument, the court, per Buffing-ton, J., dismissed these exceptions, and confirmed the pro rata distribution, and entered a final decree to that effect. Thereupon Bailey appealed, assigning the dismissal of his exceptions claiming such preference as error.

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

Related

Dornan's Estate
19 Pa. D. & C. 539 (Philadelphia County Orphans' Court, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 F. 134, 39 C.C.A. 447, 1900 U.S. App. LEXIS 4125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mctighe-v-keystone-coal-co-ca3-1900.