Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.

S.D. New York

Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.

175 F. 812, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5768

DecidedOctober 8, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 175 F. 812 (Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. New York City Ry. Co., 175 F. 812, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5768 (S.D.N.Y. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The rent reserved under this lease, 18 per cent, upon the outstanding capital stock, may have been reasonable when the lease was executed, but under existing conditions it is grossly exorbitant. The court is not without hope that before many months the property may pass out of receivers’ hands upon sale or otherwise, and it would seem very unwise for them to incumber with any such burden for the future. If petitioner thinks it can show that there are some special reasons why the system should retain this particular road, even at a preposterous price, it may take an order sending the matter to a special master to take testimony. The papers submitted on this motion are not convincing.

In the interim between now and foreclosure sale and subsequent delivery, the receivers may continue paying the stipulated rental, without adopting the lease, and without prejudice to any subsequent motion by any party interested to disaffirm the lease, unless the rental be reduced.

The motion is denied.

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

LACOMBE, Circuit Judge.

The rent reserved under this lease, 18 per cent, upon the outstanding capital stock, may have been reasonable when the lease was executed, but under existing conditions it is grossly exorbitant. The court is not without hope that before many months the property may pass out of receivers’ hands upon sale or otherwise, and it would seem very unwise for them to incumber with any such burden for the future. If petitioner thinks it can show that there are some special reasons why the system should retain this particular road, even at a preposterous price, it may take an order sending the matter to a special master to take testimony. The papers submitted on this motion are not convincing.

In the interim between now and foreclosure sale and subsequent delivery, the receivers may continue paying the stipulated rental, without adopting the lease, and without prejudice to any subsequent motion by any party interested to disaffirm the lease, unless the rental be reduced.

The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 F. 812, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5768, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-steel-co-v-new-york-city-ry-co-nysd-1909.