Southern Ry. Co. v. Townsend

161 F. 310, 88 C.C.A. 390
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMarch 24, 1908
DocketNo. 1,351
StatusPublished

This text of 161 F. 310 (Southern Ry. Co. v. Townsend) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Southern Ry. Co. v. Townsend, 161 F. 310, 88 C.C.A. 390 (5th Cir. 1908).

Opinions

NEWMAN, District Judge.

On July 27, 1892, the Memphis & Charleston Railroad was placed in the hands of Charles M. McGhee and Henry Eink as receivers, in the Western district of Tennessee, and on July 29th thereafter, under an ancillary bill filed in the Northern division of the Northern district of Alabama, the same receivers were named for the property of the railroad company in Alabama. On April 15, 1897, a decree of foreclosure of the mortgage, which was one of the purposes of the bill, was entered in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Alabama, following a decree of foreclosure in the Western district of Tennessee. Subsequently, in 1898, the property was sold, and the order confirming the sale contains this provision :

“ * * * Ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the sale so reported by said special master, and Hie purchase of said railroad property, rights, assets, and franchises by said purchasers shall be, and the same is hereby, confirmed. And the court leserves full power from time to time to enter orders binding upon the said Southern Railway Company, as purchaser, requiring it and its successors and assigns to pay, satisfy, and discharge: * * * (b) Any unpaid indebtedness and obligations or liabilities which shall have been duly contracted or incurred by the receivers before delivery of possession of the property sold. * * * The court reserves full power, notwithstanding such conveyance and delivery of possession, to retake and resell the property this day confirmed, if the purchasers or their successors or assigns shall fall or neglect fully to complete such purchase and to comply with the orders of the court in respect to full payment and performance of such bid, or to pay into court, in accordance with such decree of sale, and supplemental decree, ail such sums of money hereafter ordered by the court to be paid into its registry to discharge any and all such debts, liens, or clnims as it may adjudge and decree should be paid out of the proceeds of sale in preference to the bonds secured by the mortgage of the said Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company herein foreclosed. * * * ”

A deed was made to the purchaser of the property, the Southern Railway Compani. The special master’s deed conveying the property contained the following provisions:

[312]*312“Witnesseth: * * * Upon the condition that, to the extent that Hie assets or the proceeds of the assets in the receiver’s hands shall he insufficient the said Southern Railway Company and the said purchasers, its or their successors or assigns, shall pay, satisfy and discharge: * * * (b) Any unpaid indebtedness and obligation or liabilities which were duly contracted or incurred by the receivers before delivery of possession of the property sold. * * * And subject also to all the. conditions and reservations of said deed of sale, * * * including the reservation to said Court of the power to retake and resell the premises conveyed1 or any parcel thereof, in case the said parties of the second party, their successors and assigns shall fail to pay any sum required by them under said decrees within the time specified in said decrees, respectively, after the entry of an order requiring such payment. * * * And the grantees, parties of the second part, agreeing to take the property so sold as aforesaid, subject to the performance by them, or by their successors or assigns, of all pending contracts in respect thereto, theretofore lawfully made by the receivers, the said grantees and their successors or assigns, having nevertheless the right, within ninety days after the completion of the sale and delivery of this deed, to elect whether or not to assume or adopt any lease or contract whether or not sold with the railroads and other property and franchises, neither they nor their successors or assigns to be held to have assumed any of said contracts or leases, which they shall not so elect to assume; provided, however, that upon publication l>y the said special master, when ordered by the court, as provided in said decree, of a notice requiring holders of any claims to present the same for allowance, and any such claim which shall not be so presented or filed within the period of six months after the first publication of such notice, shall not be enforceable against the property sold, or against the said grantees, their successors or assigns. * * * ”

On March 16, 1898, an order was entered in this case, appointing a special master for the purpose of taking proof and reporting upon all claims which arose within the Northern district of Alabama, or which were held by parties residing within said district, against Charles M. McGhee and Henry Fink, receivers of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, or against the said Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company under this decree. The order provided that:

“Said special master. will make publication in some newspaper published in Huntsville, Alabama, once a week for three successive weeks, requiring all creditors or persons having claims which arose within the Northern district of Alabama or which are held by parties residing within said district either against the said receivers of the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company or against the said Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company, claiming priority over the mortgage bonds, to file the same herein on or before September 24, 1898, for allowance and action thereon by this court, or the same shall be forever barred' and denied any participation in the assets in the hands of said receivers. Said master will after the filing of any such claims, and after giving due notice of the same to the counsel representing such claims, and to the Southern Railway Company, take such proof as may he offered in support of, or in defense of such claim, and report thereon for the action of the court herein. Any claim against such receivers, or against the said the Memphis & Charleston Railroad Company within the jurisdiction of this court not filed within the time required hereby shall be forever barred from all participation in the assets derived from the sale of the mortgaged property made in this case.”

Subsequently the receivers were discharged, and their bonds canceled. At the time the order was made appointing the special master to take proof of claims, etc., on March 15,1898, an action was pending in the same court — that is, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern Division of the Northern District of Alabama — in favor [313]*313of Lemon Townsend against McGhee and Fink, receivers, for damages which he alleged he had sustained by reason oí the negligence of the receivers, their agents, servants, and cmployés, while in the employment of said receivers.

Subsequently to the discharge of the receivers, Lemon Townsend brought a petition in the Circuit Court, setting out the fact of the appointment of McGhee and Fink as receivers in 1892, their operation of the property down to 1898, the, order discharging them as receivers, and that the Southern Railway Company had become flic purchaser, and that said company had taken the property by its purchase, subject to the unpaid obligations and liabilities incurred by the receivers. The petition sets out the fact of his injury in 1896, while in the employ of the receivers, by reason of the negligence of the receivers, their employes and agents, while they were in charge of the railroad property, and the fact that his suit had been brought on the 16th day of March, 1897, for the recovery of damages by reason of his injuries.

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

Related

Cahn v. James G. Johnson & Co.
33 S.W. 1000 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
New Birmingham Iron & Land Co. v. Blevens
34 S.W. 828 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1896)
City National Bank of Dallas v. Dunham, Buckley & Co.
44 S.W. 605 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1898)
Carter Bros. & Co. v. Hightower
15 S.W. 223 (Texas Supreme Court, 1890)
Etowah Mining Co. v. Wills Valley Mining & Manufacturing Co.
106 Ala. 492 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1894)
Weatherly v. Capital City Water Co.
115 Ala. 156 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1896)
Blondheim v. Moore
11 Md. 365 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1857)
Clark v. Ridgely
1 Md. Ch. 70 (Maryland Chancery Ct, 1847)
Walker v. House
4 Md. Ch. 39 (Maryland Chancery Ct, 1848)
Coughron v. Swift
18 Ill. 414 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1857)
Winkler v. Winkler
40 Ill. 179 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1866)
First National Bank v. Gage
79 Ill. 207 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1875)
Gilbert v. Block
51 Ill. App. 516 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1894)
Rice v. St. Paul & Pacific Railroad
24 Minn. 464 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1878)
Darragh v. H. Wetter Manuf'g Co.
78 F. 7 (Eighth Circuit, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 F. 310, 88 C.C.A. 390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-ry-co-v-townsend-ca5-1908.