United States Trust Co. v. New York, W. S. & B. Ry. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court

United States Trust Co. v. New York, W. S. & B. Ry. Co.

25 F. 797, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2334

DecidedJuly 22, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 25 F. 797 (United States Trust Co. v. New York, W. S. & B. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Trust Co. v. New York, W. S. & B. Ry. Co., 25 F. 797, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2334 (uscirct 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Nixon, J.

The facts set forth on the petition, and which are not controverted by the receivers, would seem to bring the application [799]*799within the principles that justify an allowance laid down by the supreme court in Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776, S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 675, and entitle the petitioners to an order upon the receivers to pay the claims out of the income of the road. If the road should have no income, after the payment of the running expenses, as I understand the fact to be, it may be doubtful whether an order should be entered to pay from the corpus of the property. But I express no opinion upon this last point, but respectfully refer it to the New York court, where the receivers were first appointed, and to which all such applications should be made. The relations of this court to the m.ain controversy I regard as of rather an ancillary character. An order will be signed directing the receivers to pay the claim out of the income, but not out of the corpus except upon the order of the supreme court of New York by which the principal receivership was created.

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

Nixon, J.

The facts set forth on the petition, and which are not controverted by the receivers, would seem to bring the application [799]*799within the principles that justify an allowance laid down by the supreme court in Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776, S. C. 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 675, and entitle the petitioners to an order upon the receivers to pay the claims out of the income of the road. If the road should have no income, after the payment of the running expenses, as I understand the fact to be, it may be doubtful whether an order should be entered to pay from the corpus of the property. But I express no opinion upon this last point, but respectfully refer it to the New York court, where the receivers were first appointed, and to which all such applications should be made. The relations of this court to the m.ain controversy I regard as of rather an ancillary character. An order will be signed directing the receivers to pay the claim out of the income, but not out of the corpus except upon the order of the supreme court of New York by which the principal receivership was created.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 F. 797, 1885 U.S. App. LEXIS 2334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-trust-co-v-new-york-w-s-b-ry-co-uscirct-1885.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack