Phinizy v. Augusta & K. R.

62 F. 771, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2919
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of South Carolina·Decided August 18, 1894·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

HI MONTON, Circuit Judge.

These cases now come up upon a petition of Comer and Hayes, receivers of the Central Kailroad & Banking Company of Georgia, setting up certain claims against the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company, for balances due on operating expenses while the said road was in the hands of H. M. Comer, receiver, $129,225.81, and for the value of certain steel rails laid during the same period on the Augusta & Ivnoxville Railroad, a part of its system, $10,084.52 and for interest paid on the ñrst-mortgage bonds of the Augusta & Knoxville Railroad Company, $22,277.50, and praying that receivers’ certificates may be issued for the total amount claimed to be thus due. The Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company is made up of several roads. Among them, and the principal part, is the Augusta & Knoxville Railroad. Upon this road is a first mortgage, securing a number of bonds. Upon the whole system of the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway is a mortgage, subordinate to this first mortgage on the Augusta & Knoxville Railroad, at least over the property of this last-named road. The certificates asked for would be prior in lien to both mortgages. The Cenital Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia, for which the petitioners are receivers, was. a large and [772]*772powerful combination of railroads, forming a complete system, under one controlling management, all the component parts of which were made contributory to the Central Railroad of Georgia, having its ocean terminus at Savannah. This great combination had obtained and exercised complete control over the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway, and had made it an integral part of its system, • — one of the feeders of the stem. This control was secured, not by any lease or contract, nor by ownership of the property, but by means of the voting power in the corporation, through holdings of stock and bonds which had a voice in its management. The officers and agents of the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company were virtually appointed by the Central. Its financial arrangements were made by the Central. Its traffic rates were adopted by agents of the Central. All of its funds were received by the Central. In fact, it was dominated, treated, and managed as a subdivision of the Central. In the course of railway manipulation, the Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia had itself, with every part of its great system, come under the control of the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company, by virtue of a lease; and, in its turn, it was managed as a part of the system of the lessee. In March, 1892, a bill was filed in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Georgia, in the name of Rowena Clark et al. against the Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia et al.; and, as a result of this bill, the domination of the Richmond & Danville Railroad Company was ended. Subsequently, on 4th July, 1892, upon a bill filed by the Central Railroad & Banking Company, in the same court, against the Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company et al., the complainant road was placed in the hands of receivers, and finally of one receiver, H. M. Comer. The prayer and purpose of that bill were that a receiver should be appointed to take charge of and to operate the whole system of the Central Railroad & Banking Company, with its auxiliary, owned and controlled, corporations and properties of every description; among them by name, the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company. As we have seen, H. M. Comer was appointed such receiver. The declared object of this appointment, made at the instance of the insolvent corporation (complainant), was the maintenance, preservation, and protection of the entire system, in all its parts, conducted by the Central Railroad & Banking Company, and the prevention of its disintegration; in other words, the preservation and security of the object for which the great system was created. H. M. Comer, having thus been appointed receiver, under these circumstances and for these purposes, entered into the possession and control, as such receiver, of the whole system, or such parts thereof as were within the jurisdiction of the court appointing him. The Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway was a corporation both of Georgia and South Carolina, and by far the.largest part of its property was in the latter state. Auxiliary proceedings were instituted in this district under the same name and to the same effect as the Georgia suit, and under them the appointment of H. M. Comer as receiver, to the same intents and purposes, was recognized and confirmed in this district; and under this order [773]*773Comer entered into possession and control of the Port 'Royal & Western Carolina Railway in this district, as a part of the system. As such receiver, — that is, as receiver for the whole system of the Central Railroad & Banking Company, — he operated the road in question from the 20th day ol: July, 1892, to 4th June, 1893. On this last-named day he was removed as such receiver, and the whole of tire Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company was placed in the hands of John B. Cleveland, appointed as receiver in proceedings instituted by Phinizy and another trustee of the first mortgage of the Augusta & Knoxville Railroad Company, praying foreclosure of this mortgage, and also in proceedings instituted by Central Trust Company of Kew York against the Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company. During the period of Ms receivership, 11. M. Comer had operated this Port Royal road as a part of his system, and its operations were unprofitable. He had also paid interest at one time on bonds .of the Angosta & Knoxville Railroad Company. He had also placed on ihe tract, of this last-named road secondhand steel rails, under these circumstances: Kew steel rails were needed for the Central Railroad. — the main stem of the system, — and they were furnished. The old rails replaced by them were put down on the Augusta & Savannah Branch of ihe Central, and ihe steel rails for which these were substituted were put on the Augusta & Knoxville Railroad. The iron rails of this latter road, taken up to be replaced by the steel rails, were put: on the Port Royal & Augusta Railroad, another part of the great system, under the control of the same receiver. All the moneys needed for the operating expenses and the interest and the rails were furnished by H. M. Comer, receiver of the Central Railroad & Banking Company; that is, by himself to himself. Mr. llaves having been appointed to assist him as coreceiver, the account, now in question is presented in their joint names. This is proper. The receivership is continuous, and is analogous to a corporation sole. The claim belongs to the receivership. not to the person of (he receiver. McNulta v. Lochridge, 141 U. S. 331, 12 Sup. Ct. 11. If am claim exists in behalf of the Central Railroad & Banking Company for advances or improvements made anterior to ihe appointment of any receiver, it could be presented and prosecuted by them. Oil Co. v. Wilson, 142 U. S. 325, 12 Sup. Ct. 235. Xo such claim has been presented, nor does it appear that any such claim exists. The question before us naturally divides itself into three heads:

Amount Due for Operating Expenses.

The Port Royal & Western Carolina Railway Company, as has been seen, was controlled and managed by the Central Railroad & Banking Company of Georgia, as a part of — a subdivision of — its whole system, under no contractual relation, but solely by virtue of its control of the voting power in the first-named corporation. By virtue of this power, it absorbed it into its system; and.

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

Phinizy v. Augusta & K. R., 62 F. 771, 1894 U.S. App. LEXIS 2919 (circtdsc 1894).

62 F. 771 (Phinizy v. Augusta & K. R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Central R. & Banking Co. of Georgia v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
116 F. 700 (U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Georgia, 1901)
New York Security & Trust Co. v. Louisville, E. & St. L. Consol. R.
102 F. 382 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana, 1900)