Van Weel v. Winston

115 U.S. 228, 6 S. Ct. 22, 29 L. Ed. 384, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1833
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedNovember 2, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by49 cases

This text of 115 U.S. 228 (Van Weel v. Winston) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Van Weel v. Winston, 115 U.S. 228, 6 S. Ct. 22, 29 L. Ed. 384, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1833 (1885).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Miller

delivered the opinion of the court, This is an appeal from a decree of the Circuit' krt of the *237 Northern District-of Illinois, dismissing the bill of Yan Weel, who was plaintiff below and is appellant here.

The original bill was filed December 12,1876, and several amended bills were'filed, until, on May 22, 1880, complainant filed what he calls his amended and supplemental bill, substituting'it in lieu of his previous bill and amended bills.

The defendants named in this bill are the Chicago and Southwestern Railway Company of Iowa and Missouri, Frederick H. Winston; and George C. Campbell, citizens of Illinois, Calvin F. Burnes, a citizen of Missouri, and David Dows and Frederick S. Winston, citizens of New York.

Mr. Yan Weel describes himself as an alien, and a subject of the King of the Netherlands, and' a holder and owner of bonds of the Chicago and Soutlnvestern Railway Company for $67,-000 principal, and overdue interest on them to the amount of $35,175. He brings this suit, as. his bill alleges, not only for himself, but on behalf of numerous other holders of the same issue of bonds, whose names he gives, to the amount, including interest, of $671,000.

The bill was demurred to, the demurrer was sustained, and a decree rendered-, dismissing it, from which this appeal is taken.

The contest seems to be mainly between complainant Yan Weel on one side, and Frederick H. Winston on the other. 'Calvin Burnes, a citizen of Missouri, has not been served with process within the Northern District of Illinois, and has not appeared by himself or attorney. The same may be said of Frederick S. Winston, who is a citizen of New York.

F. H. Winston has demurred separately, and if thé bill cannot be sustained against him it is obvious, from its character, that it is not good against the other defendants. The Chicago and- Southwestern Railway Company also demurred,

The bill is a long one, the allegations are not classified, nor the true foundations of relief very clearly stated. It is full of the -words fraudulent and corrupt, and general-charges of conspiracy and violation of trust obligations. Mere words, in and of themselves, and even as qualifying adjectives of more Specific charges, are not sufficient grounds of equity jurisdiction, unless *238 the transactions to which they refer are such as in their essential nature constitute a fraud or a breach of trust, for which a court of chancery can give relief. Ambler v. Chateau, 107 U. S. 586, 590.

The charges in this bill on which relief is sought niay be arranged under two heads:

1. Fraudulent misrepresentations of the defendant affecting the character and value of the security on which the bonds in question were negotiated.

2. The violation of certain obligations, in the nature of a trust, which he assumed in regard to the security and ultimate payment of the bonds.

A few of the most important matters applicable to both these charges as found in the bill may be thus stated:

A company had been incorporated under the laws of Iowa to build a railroad from the town of Washington in that State, on the line of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company, in a southwesterly course to the Missouri River, or to the line of the State of Missouri in that direction. Another corporation had been organized under the laws of Missouri to build a railroad in that State, from a point opposite the city of Leavenworth, in Kansas, to the Iowa State line, in the direction of the city of Des Moines in that State.

These companies were consolidated into one, under the name of the Chicago and Southwestern Railway Company, with the declared purpose of building a single road from Washington to the Missouri River, at a point opposite Leavenworth. Of this company Mr. Frederick II. Winston became the president and a member of the executive committee of its board of directors. The company issued bonds for $5,000,000, which were guaranteed by the Rock Island Company, and made a mortgage on the entire line of its road to secure their payment. The length of this line was 266 miles, and the money raised on these bonds secured its rapid completion. In the mean time another corporation had been organized in Missouri to build a road from the Missouri River, opposite the.city .of Atchison in the State of Kansas, to some point on the line of the Chicago and Southwestern road. This road was called the Atchison *239 Branch; and when the main branch of the Southwestern road was nearly finished, lacking, as the bill avers, only fifty miles of its completion, a consolidation was effected between the company organized to build this branch road to Atchison and the. original Chicago and Southwestern Company, in which consolidation the corporation retained the name of this latter company.

This company, as consolidated, at once determined to raise a new loan of $1,000,000, to be used mainly for the purpose of building, the Atchison Branch road, on which but little,» if any, work had been done. As a security for the bonds of this loan, they made another mortgage, which was a first mortgage on the Atchison Branch, and a second mortgage on the main line. These bonds were all sold, and the two lines of road completed within a reasonable time; and it may as well be added, that both mortgages were forfeited in a few year's for non-payment of interest, and the mortgages foreclosed by a sale of the roads under two different foreclosure suits.

The charge of actual fraud against Mr. Winston grows out of certain acts and representations made by him in connection with the sale of these bonds by the Chicago and Southwestern Company.

In' order that no injustice may be done the complainant. in regard to his allegations on this point,' the language of the bill will be here given:

“Tour orator further complains and states that the said Frederick H. Winston and his confederates afterwards, to wit, on or about the first day of June, a.d. 1871, contrived and entered upon a scheme to secure a loan of the further sum of $1,000,000, for the ostensible purpose of building a branch line of road as hereinafter stated, but in reality to enable him and his confederates to get control of, and convert to their own use, a large part of the funds secured and advanced to build said branch road. And to that end, said Winston, as president of said Southwestern Company, caused a circular to be issued,, a true copy of which is hereto annexed, marked Exhibit ‘A,’ to which reference is made- as if it was incorporated herein, in which, among other things, speaking as president of said Southwestern Company, he said:.
*240 “£ On. the first day of May, 1871, the Chicago and Southwestern Railway, from Washington, Iowa, to Leavenworth, Kansas, a distance of 266 miles — now finished and in operation, 216 miles — will be fully completed and opened for business under the auspices and management of the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company.

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

Related

Da Silva Borges v. Bondi
145 F.4th 27 (First Circuit, 2025)
Levitan v. Stout
97 F. Supp. 105 (W.D. Kentucky, 1951)
Frier v. J. W. Sales Corp.
261 A.D. 388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1941)
Block v. City of West Palm Beach
112 F.2d 949 (Fifth Circuit, 1940)
Noland v. Noland
111 F.2d 322 (Ninth Circuit, 1940)
Roosevelt v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
78 F.2d 752 (Eighth Circuit, 1935)
Carson v. Long-Bell Lumber Corporation
73 F.2d 397 (Eighth Circuit, 1934)
Fahnestock v. Clark Henry Corp.
151 Misc. 593 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
Labate v. Harper
240 A.D. 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1933)
Wannamaker v. Edisto Nat. Bank of Orangeburg
62 F.2d 696 (Fourth Circuit, 1933)
In re the Estate of Swim
144 Misc. 206 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1932)
Live Stock Nat. Bank, Sioux City v. United States
36 F.2d 334 (Eighth Circuit, 1929)
Dunn v. Chapman
146 S.E. 818 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1929)
Farmers' Bank v. Halsey, Stuart & Co.
21 F.2d 818 (Third Circuit, 1927)
Allenhurst Park Estates v. Smith
138 A. 709 (New Jersey Court of Chancery, 1927)
Marshall v. Thompson Feature Service, Inc.
216 A.D. 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1926)
Raynor v. Scandinavian-American Bank
210 P. 499 (Washington Supreme Court, 1922)
Boyd v. United States
275 F. 16 (Fourth Circuit, 1921)
Benoit v. Perkins
104 A. 254 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
115 U.S. 228, 6 S. Ct. 22, 29 L. Ed. 384, 1885 U.S. LEXIS 1833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-weel-v-winston-scotus-1885.