North American Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R.
This text of 246 F. 260 (North American Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
On August 17, 1912, J. L. Coy, while riding as a passenger upon the cars of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, was injured at Chaifee, in the state of Missouri. On May 2, 1913, he brought an action in the circuit court of Crawford county, Ark., against the railroad company, to recover damages for his injuries. On May 28, 1913, upon a creditors’ bill, filed in this court, against the railroad company, receivers of all the property of the company were appointed, who immediately took possession thereof and have since been administering that property. On July 2, 1913, a judgment was rendered in the circuit court of Crawford county in favor of Coy and against the railroad company for $18,000, which was subsequently affirmed on June 1, 1914, by the Supreme Court of the state of Arkansas. St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Coy, 113 Ark. 265, 168 S. W. 1106.
Prior to the time when any of the mortgages upon the property of the Frisco Company were made, and ever since, there has been a statute in Arkansas which provides that every person who shall sustain loss or damages to person or property from any railroad for which a liability may exist at law shall have a lien therefor upon the roadbed, buildings, equipments, income, franchises, and all other appurtenances of said railroad, superior and paramount to that of all persons interested in said [262]*262railroad as managers, lessees, mortgagees, trustees, and beneficiaries under trusts or owners, but such lien shall not be effectual unless suit shall be brought upon the claim within one year after it accrued. San-dels & Hill’s Digest of the Statutes of Arkansas, §§ 6251, 6252; Kirby’s Digest, § 6661. Mr. Coy has presented to this court his application for payment of his judgment out of the income or out of the proceeds of the property of the railroad company in preference to the creditors secured by the mortgages upon the property. The master was of the opinion that he was entitled to no preference, because he obtained no judgment until after the receivers were appointed in this court and the property was segregated and placed in their charge. It is also contended that Coy is entitled to no lien upon the property of the railroad company in Arkansas superior to that of the bondholders secured by the mortgage, because the statute giving the lien is a local statute of that state, which was not enacted for the benefit of nonresidents thereof, and because the accident upon which Mr. Coy’s judgment is founded occurred in the state of Missouri, and not in the state of Arkansas.
It is accordingly ordered that the fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth exceptions to the report of the master be, and they are hereby, sustained, and it is further ordered and adjudged that the claim of the inter-vener, Coy, for payment of the amount of his judgment and interest, is secured by a lien under the statute of Arkansas upon the property of [263]*263the Frisco Railroad Company in Arkansas, dating from August, 1912, prior in time and superior in equity to the liens of the various mortgages upon this property, that the said claim is hereby allowed as a preferential claim, and the receivers are hereby ordered and directed to pay it out of the income of the property now in their hands, and that in case such payment is not made on account of an appeal herefrom, or otherwise, that then, in case this order and decree shall be affirmed, the purchasers at the foreclosure sale herein shall take the property subject to said lien, shall by such purchase assume the payment of this claim, aud that upon the affirmance of this order they shall forthwith pay it.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
246 F. 260, 1916 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-american-co-v-st-louis-s-f-r-moed-1916.