text:
Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum

MOTION by the appellant for a rule upon the appellee to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed pending the appeal in this court.

In this cause, a decree of foreclosure and sale was entered in the Circuit Court July 6, 1876, by consent of the present appellant corporation. Pursuant to this decree, the property was sold to James Baker, who, as is alleged, was at the time the solicitor of the company. The answer filed by him for the appellant admitted all the allegations in the bill, and made no defence whatever against the foreclosure. This was authorized by the then directors of the corporation. The purchase-money was paid by Baker, principally in the third-mortgage bonds of the company. The sale was confirmed without objection by the appellant. The owners of the bonds thus paid over organized themselves into a new corporation, and Baker assigned to them the property purchased. On the 24th of October, 1876, the Circuit Court discharged its receiver, and directed him to turn over all the property in his hands to the new corporation.

On the 1st of November, 1876, the new company made a mortgage on the property, greater in amount than that which had been cancelled by the foreclosure, and delivered the bonds to the parties who had been the holders of those surrendered in payment of the purchase-money, and to certain other persons provided for in a scheme of reorganization. The new company is now running and operating the road, and applying its revenues to the payment of the interest on the bonded indebtedness, including that covered by the new mortgage.

On the 14th of December, 1876, the stockholders of the appellant, at an adjourned annual meeting, passed an order repudiating the action of the directors in allowing their counsel to consent to the decree of foreclosure, discharged Baker as the counsel of the company, and appointed a committee to take charge of their interests without molestation from the directors, and to prosecute and defend all such suits as they might deem for the interest of the company, including an appeal from the decree of foreclosure.

Under this authority, the present appeal was taken in the name of the old corporation, by which a motion is now made for a rule upon the new corporation to show cause why a receiver should not be appointed by this court, 'with directions to take the general supervision of the road to the limited extent that the parties now in possession thereof be directed to operate the same under the general directions of the receiver, and to pay over to said receiver any moneys remaining after paying operating expenses, including taxes and such renewals and additions as the receiver approves, and the interest on the first and second mortgages and the sinking funds appertaining to them,' and that the new corporation be enjoined from paying interest upon its own issue of bonds pending the appeal.

Mr. N. A. Cowdrey in support of the motion.

No opposing counsel.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum


text: Talk:Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum/Opinion of the Court

Without undertaking to decide whether a case may not arise in which we would exercise the power of appointing a receiver, pending an appeal in this court, we are clearly of the opinion that we ought not to do so upon the showing made here. Appeals in equity are heard upon the pleadings and proofs below. No new evidence can be admitted, and the pleadings cannot be amended in this court.

In this case, the pleadings fail entirely to disclose the defence which the appellant seeks now to make, and it does appear affirmatively that the original decree was by consent. Although the sale was in form to the attorney of the appellant, it was in reality to the bondholders in whose interest the foreclosure was had. No irregularities in the sale itself except this are now complained of, and none whatever were insisted upon below.

Being entirely satisfied that the facts stated in the application for the rule are not sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the relief it asks, we refuse the rule.

Motion denied.


text: Talk:Pacific Railroad of Missouri v. Ketchum/Opinion of the Court


text:
Phipps v. Sedgwick Place

APPEALS from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

The first case was argued by Mr. William M. Evarts for the appellants, and by Mr. F. N. Bangs for the appellees. The second case was argued by Mr. F. K. Haywood for the appellants, and by Mr. F. N. Bangs, contra.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Phipps v. Sedgwick Place


text: Talk:Phipps v. Sedgwick Place

title: Talk:Phipps v. Sedgwick Place


text:
Phipps v. Sedgwick Place/Opinion of the Court

These are appeals presented by two different parties, against whom decrees were obtained in the Circuit Court by the appellee, Sedgwick, who sued as assignee in bankruptcy of James K. Place and James D. Sparkman, doing business in the city of New York as partners, under the style of James K. Place & Co.

The controversy in the District Court, where it was commenced, and in the Circuit Court, where it was heard on appeal, turned mainly on questions of fact, to be determined by the weight of evidence; and the most important part of it does so here. The evidence is voluminous and complicated, the record amounting to over eight hundred pages of printed matter. It cannot be expected that in delivering our judgment we should sustain it by any minute analysis of this testimony. We can profitably do no more than state the propositions in controversy, and the results of our inquiry upon them.

Place and Sparkman, succeeding to the business of J. K. & E. B. Place, as wholesale grocers, commenced business as partners on the first day of December, 1865, and so continued until Dec. 23, 1867. Their operations amounted to several millions of dollars. On the day last mentioned, finding themselves insolvent, they made a general assignment to Lewis W. Burrit and Thomas T. Sheffield; and, on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1868, they filed a petition in bankruptcy, under which the appellee, Sedgwick, was appointed assignee.

Some time after this, the assignee brought his bill in chancery in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the bankruptcy proceedings were pending, against the two bankrupts, and sundry other persons supposed to have money or property which ought to come to the assignee, or to have liens or other claims on such property. A decree was rendered which settled finally much that was in controversy, but in reference to two important matters appeals were taken to the Circuit Court; and it is in regard to the same matters that the two appeals now before us are taken.

The first of these, involved in the first case, grows out of the allegation in the bill that certain real estate, which we shall call the Fifth Avenue property (and which was sold under order of the court pending the suit and the proceeds paid into court), was, in law and equity, the property of the bankrupts, and that the proceeds should go to the assignee, to be administered as part of the assets of the bankrupt firm. John L. Phipps & Co. asserted a claim to this property and these proceeds, which we will presently consider. The District Court decided that the Fifth Avenue property was but a fair and reasonable settlement of James K. Place upon his wife, which was not fraudulent as to his creditors, and ordered the proceeds of the sale to be paid to Phipps & Co., who asserted rights under Mrs. Place. On appeal, the Circuit Court reversed this decree, and held that the settlement was fraudulent as to creditors, and ordered the proceeds of the sale, amounting to $93,161.42 to be paid to the assignee. From this branch of the decree Phipps & Co. appeal to this court.

The other branch of the case relates to what we shall call the Forty-third Street lots.

A similar allegation is made in the bill as regards these lots, which, having been conveyed to Mrs. Place, any by her to other parties, and several exchanges and purch ses and sales made by her, the assignee claims to have identified the property until the last sale, for which it is alleged that she received $16,000; and for this sum the assignee recovered a decree against the executors of Mrs. Place, who died pending the suit. This decree of the District Court was affirmed in the Circuit Court, and from it the executors appeal to this court, which constitutes the second case.

1. As regards the Fifth Avenue property, it may be as well to state the relation to it of Phipps & Co., the appellants. It appears that they were largely creditors of J. K. Place & Co. at the time of their failure, and, in endeavoring to secure payment of their debt after the assignment of that firm, a mortgage was given by Mrs. Place on the Fifth Avenue property to secure the sum of $50,000. Mr. Place joined in this mortgage. On the very day of the application of Place & Co. to be declared bankrupts, a personal judgment was obtained against them on the debt of Phipps & Co. It seems to be clear that the mortgage was taken under such circumstances of notice of the nature of Mrs. Place's title on the part of Phipps & Co., that their claim under that mortgage is no better than the title of Mrs. Place. The whole matter, therefore, turns upon the question of the validity of the conveyance to her, as a fair and honest provision made by a husband engaged in business, by appropriating a part of the means embarked in that business to that purpose. For it is not denied that the entire sum which went to purchasing the ground lease, building the house, and furnishing it, amounting to more than $100,000, was paid out of the moneys of the firm of J. K. Place & Co.

The evidence affecting the validity of this settlement is voluminous, consisting of an examination of the books of account of the insolvent firm, the testimony of Mr. Place and many other witnesses, accompanied with deeds, assignments, and other papers in writing. We cannot go over all this, and, concurring as we do with the opinion of the Circuit Court, it is unnecessary. A few observations must suffice.

The basis on which the honesty and fairness of the settlement is supported in argument is, that on the first day of December, 1865,-the day on which the old partnership of J. K. Place & E. B. Place was superseded by the firm of J. K. Place & Co., composed of J. K. Place and Sparkman,-Mr. Place was worth $227,000. This estimate resulted from the balance-sheet of the old firm; and that sum constituted the capital which he put into the new firm. It was in the month of September previous to this that he bought the ground lease of the lots in questions, taking the assignment to himself; and between that time and the 1st of December he entered into contracts for the erection of a building on the lots, which were supposed to amount to $50,000 or $60,000, but which in the end came to about $90,000.

There is some question whether the assignment of the lease of these lots to his wife was made on the first day of December, when it bears date, or on the first day of the next April, when it was acknowledged or recorded, with a preponderance of evidence, as we think, in favor of the latter. But upon the supposition that Mr. Place was, on the first day of December, fairly entitled to consider his interest in the business as worth $227,000, was it good faith to his creditors to withdraw about one-third of that capital and invest it in his wife's name, so that it was placed beyond the reach of his creditors, and made to constitute a luxurious home for himself? If the business which the partnership was doing was a small and a safe business, and the shape in which this sum of $227,000 stood was such as made it unquestionable as representing so much money, while the withdrawal of $90,000, if otherwise fair, might be sustained, it would still be of doubtful validity as against creditors.

But there are other and controlling circumstances in this case which we will refer to:--

1. The business of the partnership was not a small one. On the cont ary, it was very large, and must have amounted to several millions per annum. The very balance-sheet on which the transaction is defended showed that the debts of the firm at that date were near $4,000,000, and the credit side consisted in goods on hand and in debts due the firm. Of course, the real value of this balance was conjectural and uncertain.

2. The proportion of this balance was not more than ten per cent of the debts of the firm, a very small capital for such a large business; and it was unfair to the creditors to withdraw one-third of that.

3. There is strong reason to believe that other liabilities of Mr. Place in other ventures, and in regard to his purchase of his brother's interest in the old firm, when fairly taken into the account and charged against this balance, would have reduced it very considerably. How much, cannot be precisely ascertained.

4. But, though Mr. Place had given his obligations to pay what amounted to $90,000 on the house building, that was his personal obligation, and at its date was not a debt of the firm. If he afterwards took the money of the firm to pay those individual debts, at a time when the business of the firm could not stand it, the transaction must be treated as of the date when the money was so withdrawn, and its honesty tested by the condition of the business at that time. The books of the firm show that there was paid on this account up to Dec. 31, 1866, or within one year and one month after the new firm began, $82,000, including that paid before, and in the first three months of the next year, $13,000. These same books show that during this time the condition of the partnership had changed largely for the worse, independently of these outlays. The losses on the rapid decline of gold, which affected the value of their goods, and the amounts lost on the gold which they carried, was estimated at $150,000 for the first year. Losses in two collateral concerns, in which one or both of the partners were interested, also became apparent; so that before the end of the first year any prudent man must have seen that, in withdrawing so much cash from his business, he was choosing between the danger of the bankruptcy of his firm on one side, and a luxurious home for himself and wife on the other.

5. Mr. Place had agreed with his partner, Sparkman, to put into the business $600,000 of capital, to $200,000 by Sparkman. This was a moneyed obligation which he was bound to perform, but which he never did perform; and, instead of enlarging the nominal capital of $227,000, we have shown that he took over $100,000 from it for this house.

6. The books of the firm were kept in a manner which, on inspection, would show that the Fifth Avenue property was an investment which belonged to the firm, and should be counted as part of its assets; and this remained the condition of the books until after the assignment, when the book-keeper charged the whole up to Mr. Place, and thus by a stroke of the pen after insolvency, and after the assignment, $100,000, which had appeared as property of the firm, became nothing but the debt of an insolvent partner of that firm.

For these reasons, we think the decree of the Circuit Court, that the assignee was entitled to the proceeds of this property after paying a mortgage admitted to be a just claim, is right.

In reference to the decree for the payment of money against the executors of Mrs. Place on account of the Forty-third Street lots, we are of a different opinion.

The lots in which the money of the firm was first invested, and which was the beginning of this separate real-estate transaction, are estimated by the master at the value of $4,000. By subsequent exchanges or sales, the fund is traced to another piece of real estate, which is supposed to be worth $16,000; for which sum with interest a judgment is rendered against Mrs. Place.

But we are of opinion that Mrs. Place, if living, could not be subjected to such a decree, if all that is said be true; nor can her executors be now.

While the books of reports are full of cases in which real or personal property conveyed to the wife in fraud of the husband's creditors has been pursued and subjected to the payment of his debts after it had been identified in her hands, or in the hands of voluntary grantees or purchasers with notice, we are not aware of any well-considered case of high authority where the pursuit of the property has been abandoned, and a judgment in personam for its value taken against the wife.

Certainly no such doctrine is sanctioned by the common law; and, though the present suit is a bill in chancery, the decree in this case is nothing more than a judgment at law, and could as well have been maintained in a separate suit at law for the money as in this suit. And the liability of the executors of the wife to this personal judgment must depend on the same principle as if, abandoning the pursuit of the res, the assignee had brought an action at law for the money.

The statutes of the different States have gone very far in this country to modify the peculiar relations of husband and wife, as they existed at common law, in reference to their property. But they have not, except perhaps in Louisiana, gone so far as to recognize the civil-law rule of perfect independence in dealing with each other. While the statutes of New York have recognized certain rights of the wife to deal with and contract in reference to her separate property, they fall far short of establishing the principle that out of that separate property she can be made liable for money or property received at her husband's hands, which in equity ought to have gone to pay his debts. Equity has been ready, where such property remains in her hands, to restore it to its proper use, but not to hold her separate estate liable for what she has received, and probably spent at his dictation. Such a proposition would be a very unjust one to the wife still under the dominion, control, and personal influence of the husband. In receiving favors at his hands, which she supposed to be the offerings of affection, or a proper provision for her comfort, she would be subjecting that which was her own, or which might afterwards come to her from other sources, to unknown and unsuspected charges, of the amount and nature of which she would be wholly ignorant. It answers the demands of justice in such cases if the creditor, finding the property itself in her hands or in the hands of one holding it with notice, appropriates it to pay his debt. But, if it is beyond his reach, the wife should no more be made liable for it than if the husband himself had spent it in support of his family, or even of his own extravagance.

For these reasons, we are of opinion that so much of the decree of the Circuit Court as directs the payment of the proceeds of the Fifth Avenue property to Sedgwick, the assignee, must be affirmed, but without prejudice to the right of the holder of Phipps & Co.'s debt to present it for allowance as a claim against the bankrupts' assets, in regard to which we decide nothing. The decree against the executors of Mrs. Place will be reversed. In all other respects, the decree of the Circuit Court will be affirmed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity to this opinion; and it is

So ordered.


text: Talk:Phipps v. Sedgwick Place/Opinion of the Court


text:
Shaw v. Bill

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana.

In 1849, the New Albany and Salem Railroad Company was incorporated under the laws of Indiana, with power to construct a railroad from New Albany, on the Ohio River, to Michigan City, on Lake Michigan. To enable the company to raise the necessary means to complete and equip the road, it issued at different times a large amount of bonds, secured by mortgages upon its property. There were five issues of bonds, varying in amount from $500,000 to over $2,000,000, and carrying interest from seven to ten per cent per annum, payable semiannually. Each issue was secured by a separate mortgage. he first mortgage was executed in February, 1851; the second, in February, 1852; the third, in November, 1853; the fourth, in February, 1855; and the fifth, in December, 1856. They were all made to Douw Williamson, as trustee for the bondholders, the complainant, Charles E. Bill, being named as substitute or successor, in whom the estate and the powers of the trustee were to vest in case of the death, incapacity, or resignation of Williamson.

The several bonds as they matured, and the interest stipulated, not being paid, the trustee, in August, 1857, filed a bill in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, for the foreclosure of the several mortgages. The corporation was served with process of subpoena, appeared to the suit and demurred to the bill. It does not appear from the record what disposition was made of the demurrer, but it is to be inferred from the subsequent proceedings that it was abandoned. At any rate, in December of the following year (1858), a decree was entered in the case by consent of parties,-one not foreclosing the mortgages as prayed in the bill, but declaring the rights and interests of the bondholders and stockholders under the several mortgages,-in accordance with what was termed a basis of adjustment and settlement, proposed to them by the president and directors of the company. The practical effect of the decree was to extinguish all the liens upon the property of the company, except such as were created by the first and second mortgages; to provide for a reorganization of the company, and to convert the subsequent bonds into common stock of the reorganized company.

Before this decree was rendered, the bondholders, waiving their priority, had consented to an interlocutory decree, entered in June, 1858, authorizing the trustee to borrow $200,000 to pay certain unsecured debts, and to hold possession of the mortgaged property until this loan should be repaid with interest. The decree of December, 1858, provided for the prior payment of this sum, and also of a mortgage of another company for $175,000, which had been previously assumed.

Nearly ten years afterwards, in August, 1868, the bondholders secured by the first and second mortgages, or at least a large portion of them, demanded that the trustee should take proceedings to foreclose those mortgages. The trustee, acting upon the assumption that the original suit, brought in the Circuit Court for that purpose in 1857, was ended by the decree of December, 1858, commenced suit for the foreclosure desired, in a court of the State of Indiana. That suit proceeded to a final decree, under which the property was sold in May, 1869. The purchasers organized themselves under the law of Indiana into a new company, called the Louisville, New Albany, and Chicago Railway Company, which held possession of the property until it was transferred to a receiver, upon the application of the appellant, John S. Shaw. This appellant held a bond of the fourth-mortgage issue, and some stock of the company issued for bonds surrendered under the decree of December, 1858. Upon his petition, purporting to be filed on the foot of that decree, and alleging various irregularities and fraudulent practices on the part of the trustee and the first and second mortgage creditors, a receiver of the property of the company was appointed. His position was that the railroad property was placed under the exclusive wardship of the Circuit Court of the United States, by virtue of the two decrees of June and December, 1858, and that, consequently, the foreclosure proceedings in the State court were irregular and void. Ultimately, and after protracted litigation, this view of the appellant was sustained by the Circuit Court. It is unnecessary to detail the various steps taken by the parties upon the petition of Shaw. It is sufficient to mention that they led Charles E. Bill, the successor of the original trustee, to apply for leave to file a supplemental bill for the foreclosure of the mortgages remaining in force, and that his application was granted. It is upon the subsequent proceedings, resulting in a final decree of foreclosure, from which Shaw and others appealed, that the questions arise for determination here.

Mr. Samuel A. Huff for the appellants.

1. The decree against the Louisville, New Albany, and Chicago Railroad Company is erroneous, because it appears that the company was defaulted at the instance of counsel who had theretofore appeared specially for the company, and process of subpoena upon the supplemental bill was not taken out against the company before such default, nor at any time thereafter.

2. The supplemental bill upon which the final decree is founded shows upon its face that the complainant trustee, and those in whose behalf he prosecuted it, are not entitled to the relief therein prayed, nor to any relief whatever. It does not even aver that a demand of payment of the bonds was made when they were payable.

3. In the final decree, the provisions of the several mortgages touching the property covered by them respectively are wholly disregarded by the court in this, to wit,--

a. The mortgage of 1851 and that of 1852, being the first and second of the series, in express terms limit their respective operation as to the future-acquired property of the company to such as may be purchased with the bonds thereby secured, or with the money obtained therefor.

b. The mortgages of 1853 and 1855, being the third and the fourth of the series, pledged, as security for the payment of the bonds by them respectively secured, the property that might be purchased with such bonds, or with money obtained therefor.

Whereas, by the final decree of the Circuit Court, the mortgages of 1851 and 1852 are held to cover all the property of the company, whether acquired by purchase with the bonds secured by the subsequent mortgages, or with money obtained for such latter bonds, or otherwise.

4. The parties in whose sole behalf the decree was passed, having, before the filing of the supplemental bill upon which it rests, surrendered the bonds secured by the mortgages foreclosed in their behalf, in such form as to forfeit their standing in court, should therefore have been denied any relief.

Mr. Henry Crawford, contra.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Shaw v. Bill


text: Talk:Shaw v. Bill

title: Talk:Shaw v. Bill


text:
Shaw v. Bill/Opinion of the Court

It seems from the record, that, when the petition of Shaw for the appointment of a receiver was presented to the court, Mr. Hendricks, with others, appeared as special counsel for the company, and moved its dismissal. Subsequently, Mr. Hendricks appeared as counsel for the trustee in the proceedings on the supplemental bill for the foreclosure of the mortgages, and on his motion the default of the company was entered. This second appearance of counsel against the company is regarded by the appellant as exhibiting 'an anomaly in chancery practice' so great as to vitiate the decree. We do not perceive any anomaly or irregularity or impropriety in the conduct of the counsel. He might very well have appeared for the company to defeat a petition of a single creditor asking for the appointment of a receiver of its property, and yet subsequently have appeared for the trustee to foreclose its mortgages. There was nothing in the duties required on the motion which in any way conflicted with the duties required in the subsequent proceedings. There is not even a colorable pretext for calling in question the propriety of the action of counsel.

The fact that process of subpoena was not issued upon the supplemental bill is of no consequence. Such process is only necessary where new parties are brought in. The supplemental bill is a mere adjunct to the original bill, and, where the parties have already been served, no further subpoena for them is required. In this case, the company was ruled to answer; and the new parties appeared by counsel, and both demurred and answered. The fact that leave was granted upon motion of counsel to issue a subpoena against the company some months after its default had been entered, does not alter the case. Nothing appears to have been done upon the leave, and it was probably asked inadvertently.

The position that the appellants' demurrer to the supplemental bill should have been sustained, because it did not aver a demand of payment at the place where the bonds were payable, is without merit. No such ground is stated in the demurrer, which is special; and, had it been, it would have been unavailing. The insolvency of the company and its want of funds at the place designated appear from the allegations of the bill; and, where such is the fact, no demand at the place is required. The law does not exact in such a case the performance of a fruitless act.

The objection that the decree covers property not embraced or intended to be embraced by the mortgages is equally untenable. The terms of the mortgages are as broad and comprehensive as could be used. They embrace all existing property of the company, except such surplus lands as were not required for the roadway, depots, and stations, and other uses of the road, and all its future property, both such as might be purchased with the proceeds of the bonds issued and such as might be acquired by other means. The language used is, 'all the following, present, and in future to be acquired property of the parties of the first part' pertaining to the road; 'that is to say, their road made and to be made, including the right of way and land occupied thereby, together with the superstructure and tracks thereon, and all rails and other materials used therein or procured therefor, inclusive of the iron rails purchased or to be purchased or paid for with the above-described bonds, or the money obtained therefor, and the machinery purchased with the same; bridges, viaducts, culverts, fences, depot-grounds and buildings thereon, engines, tenders, cars, tools, materials, machinery, and all other personal property, right thereto or interest therein pertaining as aforesaid, together with the tolls, rents, or income to be had or levied therefrom, and all franchises, rights, and privileges of the said parties of the first part of, in, to, or concerning the same;' with a proviso that the surplus lands mentioned might be sold.

The reference made in this description to the property which might be afterwards purchased with the bonds issued, does not operate as a limitation of the lien of the mortgage to such future-acquired property, but only to remove any doubt that might otherwise possibly arise whether the property thus purchased would also go to increase the security offered. We do not deem it of any moment whether the rolling-stock and machinery in use by the company at the date of the decree were acquired with the proceeds of the bonds or with the subsequent earnings of the company. A mortgage by a railroad company which covers, in the terms of the two mortgages in suit, its engines, cars, and machinery, carries not only the cars, engines, and machinery in existence at the date of the mortgage, but such as take their place, or are subsequently added to them by the company, and are in existence at the time of the foreclosure. This kind of property is necessarily undergoing constant wear and consequent destruction; and the mortgages in suit, so far as that property is concerned, would have been of little value if their lien did not extend to such as took its place, or was added to it by the company. Pennock v. Coe, 23 How. 117; Philadelphia, Wilmington, & Baltimore R. R. Co. v. Woelpper, 64 Penn. St. 366; Phillips v. Winsolow, 18 B. Mon. (Ky.) 431.

We perceive no error in the rulings of the court below.

Decree affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT did not sit in this case, nor take part in its decision.

title: Shaw v. Bill/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Shaw v. Bill/Opinion of the Court

title: Talk:Shaw v. Bill/Opinion of the Court


text:
New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Montgomery

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Argued by Mr. William A. Maury, and submitted on printed arguments by Mr. Philip Phillips and Mr. Thomas Hunton for the appellants.

No counsel appeared for the appellees.

MR. JUSTICE SWAYNE delivered the opinion of the court.


text: Talk:New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Montgomery


text:
New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Montgomery/Opinion of the Court

This is an appeal in equity. The appellants are the complainants in the bill. The facts material to the determination of the case lie within a narrow compass, and may be briefly stated. There is no controversy about them.

On the 22d of May, 1866, the appellee, A. B. Montgomery, was indebted to the firm of Estlin & Co., of New Orleans, in the sum of $158,777.55. He made his sixty promissory notes of that date, amounting in the aggregate to the sum named, all drawn to his own order, and payable, respectively, one, two, three, four, and five years from date, with interest until paid. The maker indorsed them in blank, and secured them by a deed of trust of certain lands therein described, situated in Washington County, Mississippi. He delivered the notes so indorsed and the deed of trust to Estlin & Co. They transferred the notes in the course of business to other parties. Portions of them are held by each of the several complainants. The bill was filed to enforce the deed of trust. It avers that a part of the notes are outstanding in other hands, but that the holders are unknown and cannot be ascertained. It sets forth that it is filed for the benefit of such parties as well as the complainants, and prays that the former may be permitted to come in and prove their rights, and participate in the avails of the decree.

The defendants in their answers set up another deed of trust, executed by A. B. Montgomery, on the 13th of July, 1848, to lands covered by this deed of trust were described as in range nine, while all those, except one tract embraced in the other deed, were described as in range eight. With this exception, the description in the earlier deed applied to the lands described in the later one. The defendants insisted that the number of the range in the first deed was a mistake of the scrivener who drew it, that the number was intended to be eight instead of nine; and they insisted that the instrument should be reformed accordingly, and that the liabilities intended to be secured by it should be made the first lien upon those premises. The court below decreed in conformity to this view, and the appellants thereupon removed the case to this court by appeal for review. There is neither allegation nor proof that the complainants or the other holders of the notes delivered to Estlin & Co. had any notice of the alleged mistake when they took the paper, nor is there any averment or proof of such notice to the trustee when the deed was delivered. It is not shown by the proofs when the notes were transferred by Estlin & Co., nor when they came into the hands of the present holders. In the absence of such proof, the law presumes they were taken under-due, in good faith, and without notice of any infirmity attaching to them. Pinkerton v. Bailey, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 600; 2 Parsons on Bills and Notes, 9. Estlin & Co., however, unquestionably so took them in fact, and this protects the subsequent takers.

The deed of trust securing the payment of the notes was an incident, and accessory to them. The transfer of the notes carried with it to the transferees the benefit of the security. The trustee in such cases, like a mortgagee, is a purchaser for a valuable consideration. Both occupy the same ground with respect to notice, actual and constructive. It is that of a bona fide purchaser until the contrary is made to appear. Carpenter v. Longan, 16 Wall. 271. Generally, the rules which apply to legal apply also to equitable estates. Croxall v. Sherard, 5 Wall. 268. Here the law of notice as to the trustee and cestui que trust is the same.

Neither actual nor constructive notice to the trustee, nor to Estlin & Co., nor to either of the other holders, in season to have any effect, is shown.

There are othe considerations belonging to the subject which must not be overlooked.

When the notes and deed of trust were delivered, a thorough examination was made in the proper office, to ascertain if there was any prior incumbrance. None was found. In fact, none existed. The prior deed described wholly different lands. On the faith of this condition of things Estlin & Co. acted. The misdescription in the prior deed was not asserted in any judicial proceeding to which the trustee or any cestui que trust under the later deed was a party until it was put forth in this suit, which was instituted on the 7th of June, 1869, more than twenty years after the mistake occurred. As between Montgomery, the grantor in the prior deed, and the cestuis que trust under that deed, the deed might have been reformed, and enforced as corrected. Davenport v. Sovil's Heirs, 6 Ohio St. 459. But this cannot be done against the intervening rights of others acquired in good faith. Ohio Life & Trust Co. v. Urbana Insurance Co., 13 Ohi0, 220.

Such a result would be contrary alike to the plainest principles of reason, justice, and the law.

Decree reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree and proceed in conformity to this opinion.


text: Talk:New Orleans Canal and Banking Company v. Montgomery/Opinion of the Court


text:
Adams v. Nashville

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Edward Baxter for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. J. E. Bailey, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Adams v. Nashville


text: Talk:Adams v. Nashville

title: Talk:Adams v. Nashville


text:
Adams v. Nashville/Opinion of the Court

The plaintiffs in error, stockholders in the Fourth National Bank of Nashville, Tenn., filed their bill in the Chancery Court of Davidson County in that State against the Mayor and City Council of Nashville, to enjoin the collection of a tax imposed upon their shares of stock by that municipal corporation, and to have the tax declared illegal and void.

The bill was demurred to. The Chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, the highest court of law or equity in the State, the decree of the Chancellor was affirmed; and thereupon the case was brought to this court by writ of error.

It is contended that the statute of the United States, which authorizes the taxation by State authority of the shares of stock in a national bank, but provides that such taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals, has been violated in the case of the present plaintiffs. 13 Stat. 102. The first cause of complaint arises out of the act of the legislature of the State of Tennessee of March 1, 1869. The act, it is said, provides that no tax shall be assessed upon the capital of any bank or joint-stock company organized under the laws of that State or of the United States. This, it is insisted, is an exemption from taxation of property in the hands of individual citizens, and operates to produce a greater rate of taxation on the plaintiffs' shares in the Fourth National Bank of Nashville than is assessed on other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals, to wit, on such banking capital, and hence that such taxation is illegal.

The statute enacts that no tax shall be assessed upon the capital of a State bank, but proceeds, in the same section, to say that its shares shall be included in the valuation of the personal property of the owner, for the purpose of assessment for State, county, and municipal taxation, at the same rate that is assessed upon other moneyed capital, and that, in addition thereto, the real estate owned by the bank shall be subject to the same taxation as other real estate.

This objection, in its general character, may be considered in connection with the second objection. The answer to both of them is found in the principle thus laid down in People v. The Commissioners, 4 Wall. 256: 'That the rate of taxation upon the shares should be the same or not g eater than upon the moneyed capital of the individual citizen which is liable to taxation; that is, no greater in proportion or percentage of tax in the valuation of shares should be levied than upon other moneyed taxable capital in the hands of the citizens.' See also Hepburn v. The School Directors, 23 id. 480.

By an ordinance of the defendants' corporation, passed on the 18th of April, 1870, it is provided that certain interest-paying bonds issued by the said corporation shall be exempt from taxation by said corporation. It is said that there are many such bonds in existence in the hands of individuals; that by such exemption the complainants' shares are taxed at a greater rate than is assessed upon such bonds; and that, therefore, the taxation complained of is in violation of the act of Congress forbidding the taxation of national shares at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals.

There are several answers to this objection:--

1. It is not alleged in the bill that the bonds therein referred to are in fact exempted from taxation for municipal purposes. After reciting the issue and proposed exemption, the bill says that said property is 'thus exempted from all municipal taxes;' that is, that, as a matter of law, it follows from the facts before stated that it is thus exempt.

This is not sufficient, especially when it is alleged in the brief opposed that the fact is otherwise.

2. By the statutes of the State of Tennessee, passed subsequently to the issue of the bonds, all personal property, of every kind and nature, is required to be listed and assessed for taxation.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee hold, in the case before us, that this statute repeals and overrides the ordinance of exemption, and brings these bonds within the scope of general taxation. This is a decision of a State tribunal upon the construction of its own statutes, which we are bound to respect.

3. Considering the objection on its merits and in connection with the objection first described, the case is met by Hepburn v. The School Directors, supra.

By a statute of Pennsylvania, it was enacted that 'all mortgages, judgments, recognizances, and moneys owing upon articles of agreement for the sale of real estate shall be exempt from taxation, except for State purposes.' There, as here, it was objected that this exemption, by relieving certain specified property from taxation, brought the case within the prohibition of the act of Congress, and thus vitiated the tax sought to be enforced. This court held otherwise.

The act of Congress was not intended to curtail the State power on the subject of taxation. It simply required that capital invested in national banks should not be taxed at a greater rate than like property similarly invested. It was not intended to cut off the power to exempt particular kinds of property, if the legislature chose to do so. Homesteads, to a specified value, a certain amount of household furniture (the six plates, six knives and forks, six teacups and saucers, of the old statutes), the property of clergymen to some extent, schoolhouses, academies, and libraries, are generally exempt from taxation. The discretionary power of the legislature of the States over all these subjects remains as it was before the act of Congress of June, 1864. The plain intention of that statute was to protect the corporations formed under its authority from unfriendly discrimination by the States in the exercise of their taxing power. That particular persons or particular articles are relieved from taxation is not a matter to which either class can object.

The third objection is equally untenable. The statute referred to does not purport to relieve any property from taxation. It provides a mode for ascertaining the average capital of the merchant, and for giving a license to carry on the business of a merchant. He is required to pay an ad valorem tax on all his capital, and a license tax in addition.

The observations already ade are pertinent under this head.

Judgment affirmed.

title: Adams v. Nashville/Opinion of the Court


text: Talk:Adams v. Nashville/Opinion of the Court


text:
Reed v. Mutual Insurance Company

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland.

The circumstances of this case, as gathered from the pleadings and evidence, particularly the agreed statement made by the parties themselves, are substantially as follows:--

In November, 1867, the libellant, Samuel G. Reed, of Boston, was owner of the ship 'Minnehaha,' then lying at Honolulu, in the Sandwich Islands, and about to sail from that place in ballast via Baker's Island, with the intention of there taking in a cargo of guano, to a port of discharge in the United States. Baker's Island is a small rocky island in mid-ocean, nearly under the equator, and about two thousand miles south-westerly from the Sandwich Islands, having no harbor or anchorage, and only frequented for its guano. When ships arrive there, they are moored in the open sea, in an exposed and perilous position. The mooring is effected by means of a heavy stationary anchor, weighing five thousand six hundred pounds, fastened to a coral reef in about one hundred fathoms of water, to which anchor a large buoy is attached by a heavy pendant chain. This chain is braced by two other chains, each over a thousand feet long, attached to anchors fastened to another coral reef nearer to the island. By still another chain the ship is moored to the first-mentioned pendant chain as long as she remains at the island; and her cargo is sent aboard from the island in small boats. The place is subject to strong currents and heavy gales, and vessels are, in consequence of the weather, frequently obliged to put to sea while loading.

On the 6th of January, 1868, the libellant, through a firm of insurance brokers in New York, made application by mail to the Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company of Baltimore for insurance on the said ship 'Minnehaha,' in the following terms:--

'Application for insurance is hereby made by Johnson & Higgins, as agents, in the name of Samuel G. Reed, account of whom it may concern. Loss, if any, payable to them or order. For [$5,000, at seven per cent net] on ship 'Minnehaha,' valued at $60,000, at and from Honolulu, via Baker's Island, to a port of discharge in the United States not east of Boston, with liberty to use Hampton Roads for order; the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker's Island loading.'

This application was enclosed in the following letter:--

'OFFICE OF JOHNSON & HIGGINS, &c.,

'87 Wall Street, New York,

'Jan. 6, 1868.

'GEORGE R. COALE, Esq., Secretary:

'DEAR SIR,-Enclosed please find two applications for Samuel G. Reed: viz., one on the 'Minnehaha' (our companies here are averse to Baker's Island risks, and for that reason the owners suspend the risk while at Baker's Island loading. The Atlantic have taken a large line on vessel and freight at seven per cent, with scrip); also, one on the 'Guiding Star,' now loading under inspection of Captains Ellis and Story, for underwriters. Please let us know how much your companies will take on each, and the lowest respective rates. Should like to hear by telegraph.

'Yours respectfully,

'JOHNSON & HIGGINS,

'Per TOOKER.'

In pursuance of this application, the company issued the policy on which the present suit is brought, the operative clause of which is in these words:--

'The Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company of Baltimore have insured, and do hereby insure, agreeably to order, Samuel G. Reed, for account of whom it may concern, lost or not lost, at and from Honolulu, via Baker's Island, to a port of discharge in the United States not east of Boston, with liberty to use Hampton Roads for orders, the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker's Island loading, $5,000, upon the body, tackle, &c., of the good ship 'Minnehaha."

The ship sailed in ballast from Honolulu the 7th of November, 1867, and arrived near Baker's Island on the afternoon of the twentie h day of that month. She came to her mooring near the island in safety; shortly after which a heavy gale and heavy surf arose, and continued with violence until the 3d of December, when the ship parted her moorings, and was totally wrecked and lost. At no time after her arrival at that island was it possible to discharge ballast or receive cargo, or commence the process of loading, or even the preparation for loading.

Proof of loss and of interest and adjustment was duly presented to the company, and payment demanded therefor and refused.

On May 20, 1872, Reed exhibited his libel in the District Court of the United States for the District of Maryland against said company. That court upon hearing dismissed the cause; and the Circuit Court having affirmed the decree, the libellant brought the case here.

The Statute of Limitations in force in Maryland provides as follows:--

'All actions of account, actions of assumpsit or on the case, actions of debt on simple contract, or for rent in arrears, detinue, and replevin, all actions for trespass for injuries to real or personal property, shall be commenced or sued within three years from time the cause of action accrues.'

Mr. Frederick E. Bryant and Mr. Charles B. Goodrich for the appellant.

1. The policy covers the voyage during which the loss occurred, and the appellant is prima facie entitled to recover the amount of such loss. The vessel was insured from Honolulu, via Baker's Island, to her port of discharge; and the intention of the assured and insurer that she should stop there is thus clearly manifested.

2. The excepting clause, 'the risk to be suspended while the vessel is at Baker's Island loading,' has no bearing upon the rights of the parties; because no loading was made or attempted. The appellee gives to that clause a broader signification than its terms justify, and makes it include a suspension of the risk before the process of loading began. If it be ambiguous (which we deny), it should receive a construction least favorable to the company. 2 Parsons, Contr. 19 (ed. 1860); Dann v. Spurrier, 3 B. & P. 399; Doe v. Dixon, 9 East, 15; Throckmorton v. Wacy, Plowd. 154; Melvin v. ''Prop., &c. on Merrimack River'', 5 Met. (Mass.) 27. Usage is never admissible to contradict what is plain. Hearne v. Marine Insurance Co., 20 Wall. 492; Haskins v. Warren, 115 Mass. 535; Dickenson v. Gay, 7 Allen (Mass.), 34; Black v. Bachelder, 120 Mass. 171. Nothing can be plainer than that the risk was to be suspended only while the vessel was at Baker's Island loading. Any other construction would do violence to the rule that full force and effect should be given to every word of a written contract. 2 Parsons, Contr. 16, 17 (ed. 1860); Evans v. Sanders, 8 Port. (Ala.) 497; Stratton v. Pettit, 16 C. B. 520.

The statement made in the letter of Johnson & Higgins, which accompanied the application for the policy, that the New York companies were averse to Baker's Island risks, &c., even if fraudulently made, which it was not, is immaterial, and does not vitiate the insurance, as neither the appellee nor its agent was thereby influenced to take the risk. 1 Phillips, Ins., sects. 539-541; Salem India-Rubber Co. v. Adams, 23 Pick. (Mass.) 256; 1 Parsons, Mar. Ins. 465; Flinn v. Tobin, 1 Moo. & M. 367; Flinn v. Headlam, 9 B. & C. 693.

In regard to the position taken on the other side, that the lapse of time bars this suit, it is submitted that statutes of limitation are, like all statutes in derogation of the common law, construed strictly. This, moreover, is a proceeding in admiralty. The act of Maryland cannot affect the status of the appellant in a court of the United States, nor even furnish any analogy to control the exercise of its jurisdiction. The company has not been injured by delay, and sustaining the bill will not produce public inconvenience. The imputed laches, therefore, furnish no legal or equit ble ground for depriving him of his right to a determination of the case upon its merits. Pickering v. Lord Stamford, 2 Ves. Jr. 583; Allore v. Jewell, 94 U.S. 506; Bingham v. Wilkins, Crabbe, 50; Brown v. Jones, 2 Gall. 477; Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mas. 95; The Key West, 14 Wall. 653.

Mr. John H. Thomas, contra.

The letter of Johnson & Higgins to the agent of the appellee was intended to produce, and did produce, on his mind the impression that the New York companies had excluded the risks of Baker's Island by suspensions coextensive with that mentioned in the application. If they had not, the policy was obtained by misrepresentation, and is null and void. 1 Parsons, Mar. Ins. 409, 410.

The policy without the suspending clause would not have covered the vessel at Baker's Island, but only during her voyage via that island. When property is intended to be covered by a marine insurance at a place, not constituting a part of the voyage, apt and express words adequate to that purpose are always used; as, for example, 'at and from,' 'to, at, and from,' 'to, while there, and thence,' 'with liberty to touch at,' 'with liberty to touch and stop at,' 'with liberty to touch and load at,' &c. 1 Phillips, Ins., sects. 928, 1005, 1014; 2 Parsons, Mar. Ins. 16, and notes; Park, Ins. 388; Barber v. Fleming, 5 Law Rep. Q. B. 59; Stitts v. Wardell, 2 Esp. 610; Sheriff v. Potts, 5 id. 96; United States v. The Paul Shearman, 1 Pet. C. Ct. 98-104; Cross v. Shuttliffe, 2 Bay (S.C..), 220.

The words 'via Baker's Island' are descriptive of the voyage. Without them the vessel would have been obliged to pursue the accustomed route. Passing that island, if unusual and unnecessary, and, a fortiori, stopping, loading, or even touching there, would have been a deviation, causing a forfeiture of the policy. The words suspending the risk, 'while at Baker's Island loading,' were introduced to limit and not enlarge the operation of the instrument. If the intention had been to suspend the risk 'while loading,' the collocation of them would have been 'while loading at Baker's Island.' Place is the controlling idea of the words as used; 'loading' is subordinate. It indicates the purpose of being at the place, not the terms of the risk. Devoux v. J'Anson, 5 Bing. N. C. 539.

If the construction here contended for is not the natural one, looking at the policy alone, it is proper to invoke, in aid of its interpretation, the letter enclosing the application, and therefore a part of it. Looking at the entire instrument, the object sought to be accomplished, and all the circumstances of the case, it seems impossible to resist the conclusion that the words in the clause were employed to describe the place at which the risk was to be suspended, and the purpose for which the vessel was to be there, without reference to the mode in which her crew might be employed. Courts have gone so far in this line of interpretation as to decide, that, although the literal and grammatical construction of a policy would make it attach only on goods 'at' a designated place, 'it may attach although the ship be at another place, if the policy and all the circumstances make it certain that the name of the place is either surplusage or a mere term of description.' 2 Parsons, Mar. Ins. 45.

If the name of a place can be so rejected, for the purpose of carrying into effect the intention of the parties, why, on the same principle, may not a word designating only the contemplated employment of the crew at a place be rejected? Id. 50.

Exceptions in a policy must always be construed according to the actual intention of the parties, so as to carry the contract into effect. 1 Parsons, Mar. Ins. 64, note 1; id. 623; Cross v. Shuttliffe, 2 Bay (S.C..), 23; Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335. When the policy was issued, it is clear that neither Johnson & Higgins nor the appellant considered t at it covered the vessel when at the island, whether she was engaged in loading or not. If there is any doubt as to the true meaning of the instrument, their construction of it, concurring with that of the appellee, is entitled to great and conclusive weight. Railroad Company v. Trimble, 10 Wall. 367. Resort may be properly had to the testimony of experts to aid in interpreting the clause of exemption. 1 Parsons, Mar. Ins. 77, 83, 627, 628; ''Salmon Falls Man. Co. v. Goddard'', 14 How. 447; Grey v. Harper, 1 Story, 574; Shaw v. Wilson, 9 Cl. & Fin. 555; Smith v. Wilson, 3 Barn. & Ad. 728; Williams v. Wood, 16 Md. 251; Merchants' Bank v. State Bank, 10 Wall. 667; 2 Taylor, Evid., p. 1009, 1010, sects. 1060, 1062, 1068; 1 Greenl. Evid., sects. 280-282.

This suit, when brought, was barred by the Statute of Limitations of Maryland. 1 Md. Code, p. 395.

In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, courts of equity adopt the period of limitation prescribed for courts of law. Lewis v. Marshall, 5 Pet. 470; Peyton v. Smith, id. 485; Miller v. McIntyre, 6 id. 61; Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12 id. 56; Elmendorff v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152; Thomas v. Harvies's Heirs, id. 149, 150; Burke v. Smith, 16 Wall. 401; Hirtle v. Schwartz, 3 Md. 383; Teackle v. Gibson, 8 id. 87; Knight v. Brown, 14 id. 7; Dugan v. Gittings, 3 Gill (Md.), 161.

Admiralty courts are chancery courts of the sea, and are governed by chancery rules in the administration of their remedies. Packard v. Sloop Louisa, 2 Woodb. & M. 60; Brig Sarah Ann, 2 Sumn. 212; Pittman v. Hooper, 3 id. 305; Willard v. Dorr, 3 Mas. 163; Joy v. Allen, 2 Woodb. & M. 304.

The Key City, 14 Wall. 653, was a proceeding in rem exclusively of admiralty jurisdiction. The principles there enunciated are expressly confined to such a case. It establishes nothing at variance with what is here contended for. In a matter solely within their cognizance, courts of equity do not inflexibly adhere to the common-law period of limitation. Wisner v. Barnet, 4 Wash. 640; Kane v. Bloodgood, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) Ch. 90. Nor do the admiralty courts; but that doctrine has no application to this suit.

MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Reed v. Mutual Insurance Company


text: Talk:Reed v. Mutual Insurance Company

title: Talk:Reed v. Mutual Insurance Company


text:
Reed v. Mutual Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court

This is a cause of contract, civil and maritime, commenced by a libel in personam by Samuel G. Reed, the appellant, against the Merchants' Mutual Insurance Company of Baltimore, the appellee, to recover $5,000, the amount insured by the latter on the ship 'Minnehaha,' belonging to the libellant. The policy was dated the fourteenth day of January, 1868, and insured said ship in the amount named, lost or not lost, at and from Honolulu, via Baker's Island, to a port of discharge in the United States not east of Boston, with liberty to use Hampton Roads for orders, 'the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker's Island loading.' The ship was lost at Baker's Island, where she had gone for the purpose of loading, on the third day of December, 1868. The defence was that the loss occurred whilst the risk was suspended under the clause above quoted; also laches by reason of the delay in commencing suit, being more than four years after the cause of action accrued.

This case, upon the merits, depends solely upon the construction to be given to the clause in the policy before referred to, namely, 'the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker's Island loading;' and turns upon the point whether the clause means, while the vessel is at Baker's Island for the purpose of loading, or while it is at said island actually loading. If it means the former, the company is not liable; if the latter, it is liable.

A strictly literal construction would favor the latter meaning. But a rigid adherence to the letter often leads to erroneous results, and misinterprets the meaning of the parties. That such was not the sense in which the parties in this case used the words in question is manifest, we think, from all the circumstances of the case. Although a written agreement cannot be varied (by addition or subtraction) by proof of the circumstances out of which it grew and which surrounded its adoption, yet such circumstances are constantly resorted to for the purpose of ascertaining the subject-matter and the stand-point of the parties in relation thereto. Without some knowledge derived from such evidence, it would be impossible to comprehend the meaning of an instrument, or the effect to be given to the words of which it is composed. This preliminary knowledge is as indispensable as that of the language in which the instrument is written. A reference to the actual condition of things at the time, as they appeared to the parties themselves, is often necessary to prevent the court, in construing their language, from falling into mistakes and even absurdities. On this subject Professor Greenleaf says: 'The writing, it is true, may be read by the light of surrounding circumstances, in order more perfectly to understand the intent and meaning of the parties; but, as they have constituted the writing to be the only outward and visible expression of their meaning, no other words are to be added to it, or substituted in its stead. The duty of the courts in such cases is to ascertain, not what the parties may have secretly intended, as contradistinguished from what their words express, but what is the meaning of the words they have used.' 1 Greenl. Evid., sect. 277. Mr. Taylor uses language of similar purport. He says: 'What ever be the nature of the document under review, the object is to discover the intention of the writer as evidenced by the words he has used; and, in order to do this, the judge must put himself in the writer's place, and then see how the terms of the instrument affect the property or subject-matter. With this view, extrinsic evidence must be admissible of all the circumstances surrounding the author of the instrument.' Taylor, Evid., sect. 1082. Again he says: 'It may, and indeed it often does, happen, that, in consequence of the surrounding circumstances being proved in evidence, the courts give to the instrument, thus relatively considered, an interpretation very different from what it would have received, had it been considered in the abstract. But this is only just and proper; since the effect of the evidence is not to vary the language employed, but merely to explain the sense in which the writer understood it.' Id., sect. 1085. See Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, and remarks of Mr. Justice Strong in Maryland v. Railroad Company, 22 id. 105.

The principles announced in these quotations, with the limitations and cautions with which they are accompanied, seem to us indisputable; and, availing ourselves of the light of the surrounding circumstances in this case, as they appeared, or must be supposed to have appeared, to the parties at the time of making the contract, we cannot doubt that the meaning of the words which are presented for our consideration is that the risk was to be suspended while the vessel was at Baker's Island for the purpose of loading, whether actually engaged in the process of loading or not. Taking this clause in absolute literality, the risk would only be suspended when loading was actually going on. It would revive at any time after the loading was commenced, if it had to be discontinued by stress of weather, or any other cause. It would even revive at night, when the men were not at work. This could not have been the intent of the parties. It could not have been what they meant by the words 'while vessel is at Baker's Island loading.' It was the place, its exposure, its unfavorable moorage, which the insurance companies had to fear, and the risk of which they desired to avoid. The whole reason of the thing and the object in view point to the intent of protecting themselves whilst the vessel was in that exposed place for the purpose referred to, not merely to protect themselves whilst loading was actually going on. Her visit to the island was only for the purpose of loading; as between the contracting parties, she had no right to be there for any other purpose; and, supposing that they intended that the risk should be suspended whilst she was there for that purpose, it would not be an unnatural form of expression to say, 'the risk to be suspended while vessel is at Baker's Island loading.' And we think that no violence is done to the language used, to give it the sense which all the circumstances of the case indicate that it must have had in the minds of the parties.

If we are right in this construction of the contract, there can be no uncertainty as to its effect upon the liability of the underwriters. The loss clearly accrued at a time when, by the terms of the policy, the risk was suspended. The ship sailed in ballast from Honolulu on or about the 7th of November, 1867, and arrived at Baker's Island on the afternoon of the twentieth day of November, 1867. She came to her mooring in safety, and her sails were furled, shortly after which a heavy gale and heavy surf arose. The gale and surf continued with violence until the 3d of December, 1867, when the ship parted her moorings, and was totally wrecked and lost. At no time after her arrival at Baker's Island was it possible to discharge ballast or receive cargo or to commence the progress of loading. The violence of the winds, current, and waves, and their adverse course and direction, prevented the ship from slipping her cables and getting to sea, or otherwise escaping the perils that surrounded her.

These facts are indisputable; and they show that, when the loss occurred, the vessel was at Baker's Island for the purpose of loading. That the process of loading had not actually commenced is of no consequence. The suspension of the risk commenced as soon as the vessel arrived at the island and was safely moored in her proper station for loading.

The appellee, as a further defence, set up laches in bringing suit. The libel was not filed until more than four years had elapsed after the cause of action had accrued. The Statute of Limitations of Maryland requires actions of account, assumpsit, on the case, &c., to be brought within three years; and the counsel for the appellee insists that by analogy to this statute the Admiralty Court, having concurrent jurisdiction with the State courts in this case, should apply the same rule. We had occasion, in the case of The Key City, 14 Wall. 653, to explain the principles by which courts of admiralty are governed when laches in bringing suit is urged as an exception in cases cognizable therein. In view of the construction which we have given to the contract in this case, it is not necessary to pass upon the precise question now raised by the appellee.

It is also unnecessary to examine other questions which were mooted on the argument.

Decree affirmed.


text: Talk:Reed v. Mutual Insurance Company/Opinion of the Court


text:
Van Reynegan v. Bolton

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of California.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Submitted on printed arguments by the plaintiffs in error, and by Mr. B. S. Brooks for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Van Reynegan v. Bolton


text: Talk:Van Reynegan v. Bolton

title: Talk:Van Reynegan v. Bolton


text:
Van Reynegan v. Bolton/Opinion of the Court

This is an action of ejectment for the possession of a tract of land situated in the county of Marin, in the State of California. The plaintiff traces title to the demanded premises from the Mexican government through a grant made to one John Reed in 1834, and confirmed by the tribunals of the United States. The defendants, against whom judgment was recovered, held separate parcels of the premises, claiming to be rightfully in possession under the pre-emption laws of the United States.

It appears from the findings of the court that in 1834 the Mexican governor of California, Jos e Figueroa, granted to Reed a tract of land known as Corte Madera del Presidio, bou ded by the mission of San Rafael and the port of San Francisco, the quantity being specified in the grant as 'one square league, a little more or less, as explained by the map attached to the proceedings' (expediente). In the following year, possession of the tract was delivered to the grantee by the proper Mexican officials; and from that time he continued in its possession and enjoyment until his death. The demanded premises are a parcel of this tract. In 1852, the heirs of Reed presented their claim under the grant for confirmation to the board of land commissioners for the settlement of land-titles in California, created by the act of March 3, 1851; and in 1854, by a decree of the board, the claim was confirmed. On appeal to the District Court this decree was affirmed. No further proceedings appear to have been prosecuted by the government, and the confirmation thus became final.

The grant is not set forth in the record; but we must presume that it was in the ordinary form of grants made by former governors of California, under the Mexican colonization law of 1824, as under no other law were those governors empowered to make grants of the public domain. Those grants were sometimes of tracts designated by well-defined boundaries, sometimes of a specified quantity of land lying within exterior boundaries embracing a greater amount, and sometimes of places by name where these were well known, and thus capable of ready identification. All of them were made subject to the approval of the assembly of the department; and, until they received such approval, the estate granted was liable to be defeated. And, when the approval was obtained, there was another proceeding to be taken, which was essential to the complete investiture of title; and that was, a formal delivery of possession of the property by a magistrate of the vicinage, called, in the language of the country, the delivery of juridical possession. This proceeding involved the establishment of the boundaries of the tract, when there was any uncertainty respecting them. If these were designated in the grant, it required their ascertainment and identification; if they were not thus designated, it required the measurement of the quantity granted and its segregation from the public domain. The regulations prescribed by law for the guidance of the magistrate in these matters made it his duty to preserve a record of the various steps taken in the proceeding, to have the same attested by the assisting witnesses, and to deliver an authentic copy to the grantee.

Ordinarily, the boundaries thus established would be accepted as conclusive by our government. Unless there is something in the decree of confirmation otherwise limiting the extent or the form of the tract, they should control the officers of the United States in making their surveys. It was so held by this court in Graham v. United States, 4 Wall. 259, and in Pico v. United States, 5 id. 536.

In the case at bar, the surveyor-general for California disregarded the boundaries established upon the jurisdical possession delivered to the grantee. He proceeded upon the conclusion that the confirmees were restricted by the decree to one square league, to be measured out of the tract within those boundaries, which exceeded that amount by about fifteen hundred acres. Whether the terms of the decree justified his conclusion is a question upon which it is unnecessary for us to express an opinion. That is a question which must, in the first instance, be determined by the Land Department in carrying the decree into execution by a survey and patent. It is sufficient for the present case that the survey made was contested by the confirmees, and the contest was undetermined when this action was tried. Until finally approved, the survey could not impair their right to the possession of the entire tract as delivered by the former government to the grantee under whom they claim. Until then, it was inoperative for any purpose. Even if the limitation to one square league should u timately be held correct, that square league might be located in a different portion of the tract by direction of the Land Department, to which the supervision and correction of surveys of private land-claims are intrusted. The confirmees could not measure off the quantity for themselves, and thus legally segregate it from the balance of the tract. The right to make the segregation rested exclusively with the government, and could only be exercised by its officers. Until they acted and effected the segregation, the confirmees were interested in preserving the entire tract from waste and injury, and in improving it; for until then they could not know what part might be assigned to them. Until then, no third person could interfere with their right to the possession of the whole. No third person could be permitted to determine, in advance of such segregation, that any particular locality would fall within the surplus, and thereby justify his intrusion upon it and its detention from them. If one person could in this way appropriate a particular parcel to himself, all persons could do so; and thus the confirmees would soon be stripped of the land which was intended by the government as a donation to its grantee, whose interests they have acquired, for the benefit of parties who were never in its contemplation. If the law were otherwise than as stated, the confirmees would find their possessions limited, first in one direction, and then in another, each intruder asserting that the parcel occupied by him fell within the surplus, until in the end they would be excluded from the entire tract. Cornwell v. Culver, 16 Cal. 429; Riley v. Heisch, 18 id. 198; Mahoney v. Van Winkle, 21 id. 552.

The defendants acquired no rights as pre-emptioners under the laws of the United States. Lands claimed under Mexican grants in California are restricted from settlement so long as the claims of the grantees remain undetermined. 10 Stat. 246. Their possession, therefore, was that of simple intruders and trespassers without color of right.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:Van Reynegan v. Bolton/Opinion of the Court


text:
McMillen v. Anderson

ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.

The petition in the case alleges that the defendant, on the 19th of April, 1873, broke into the store of the plaintiff, and carried away certain merchandise, and prays for an injunction. Upon the plaintiff giving the required bond and security, an injunction restraining the defendant from further trespass, and from advertising and selling the property which he had already seized, was granted.

The defendant set up that the plaintiff was a delinquent tax-payer, and that in making the seizure the defendant was acting in the discharge of his duty as tax-collector of the parish of Carroll, Louisiana, under the act of that State, of March 14, 1873, which provides:--

'That in all cases of neglect or refusal to pay their licenses of any description by any person, firm, company, or corporation doing business in this State, the tax-collector shall give ten days' written or printed notice to such delinquent tax-payer to pay such licenses, if such delinquent can be found; otherwise, the notice shall be given by publication for ten days in the official journal, if there be one in the parish; if there be no official journal published in the parish, the notice may be posted at the court-house door; and if at the expiration of said notice the license, together with all costs, be not fully paid, the tax-collector may, without any judicial formality, proceed to seize and sell, after ten days' advertisement, the property, rights, and credits of such delinquent tax-payer, or so much thereof as may be necessary to satisfy the claims of the State as aforesaid, together with all the costs and charges.

'That all causes which may be commenced hereafter in any of the courts of this State, in which it is sought to enjoin the collection of any licenses or taxes whatever, whether State or parish, general or special, imposed by competent authority, shall be regarded as preference cases, and the court shall proceed to final trial and determination of the same at the earliest moment compatible with the ends of justice; and tax-collectors shall not be liable for damages for prosecuting such cases; and, upon a dissolution of any injunction hereafter granted to enjoin or delay the collection of any such taxes so levied or imposed upon any person or property in this State, the court ordering such injunction to be dissolved shall enter a decree against the person or persons suing out the same, and his or their securities, on their injunction bond for the sum of one hundred per cent on the amount of all taxes the collection of which was so delayed or enjoined, and all costs of suits; and said decrees shall be enforced as other decrees are enforced, and the money collected and paid into the proper treasury.

'That the tax-payers who are now or shall become delinquents by the non-payment of taxes on real estate, as provided for in this act, and shall have been so returned upon the rolls of the tax-collector to the auditor of public accounts, the auditor shall publish in the official journal of the parish in which such delinquent resides, or by public notice, when there is no official journal, by three insertions within ten days, the name, residence of, and amount due from, such delinquent tax-payer; and such delinquent tax-payer shall after thirty days forfeit his right to bring suit or be a witness for or in his own behalf before any justice, parish, district, or State court; and every court having jurisdiction within the State shall deny and refuse to issue a civil process of any kind or nature whatever in his own name or for his own benefit, until he shall, if a resident of the parish of Orleans, have procured from the auditor of public accounts, or, if a resident of a country parish, from the tax-collector thereof, a certificate setting forth that all such claims for delinquent taxes and costs thereon against such delinquent tax-payer have been paid.'The revenue law in relation to licensing or taxing retail merchants and retailers of spirituous liquors, provides as follows:--

'There shall be levied and collected an annual amount as a license or tax. . . from each and every retail merchant, fifteen dollars;. . . from the proprietors of all coffee-houses, beer saloons or gardens, or cabarets, eighty-five dollars; all retail groceries selling by the glass shall pay, in addition to the grocery license, a coffee-house license.'

The amount of tax claimed to be due upon the business of the plaintiff was the sum of one hundred dollars. The injunction was dissolved, and a judgment rendered in favor of the defendant. That judgment having been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State, the plaintiff brought the case here, and assigns for error that the statute under which the defendant acted deprived the plaintiff of his property without due process of law, and is, therefore, in violation of the [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]] to the Constitution of the United States, and void.

Mr. J. E. Leonard for the plaintiff in error.

Although taxes may be collected summarily and without the aid of the courts, there must be due process of some kind. It is not in the power of the legislature to make any process due process of law. Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land Company, 18 How. 272; Allen v. Armstrong, 16 Iowa, 508; Ervine's Appeal, 16 Penn. St. 256. The so-called license, the collection of which is resisted by the plaintiff, is, in reality, a tax. A license to sell liquor is granted only by the parish; the State then taxes the occupation or traffic. Rev. Stat. La., sect. 2779.

The act deprives the plaintiff of his property without due process of law, because it condemns him without a hearing. It fixes the tax to be paid by a retail liquor-dealer, but points out no metho by which it may be ascertained whether a particular person is such a dealer. No one can be condemned without an opportunity to be heard. Fisher v. McGirr, 1 Gray (Mass.), 1.

If the tax-collector's proceedings were authorized by the law (and the State court has decided that they were), he was armed by the statute with a general search-warrant, and that, too, unsupported by oath. Entick v. Carrington, 19 St. Tr. 1030; Attorney-General v. Racine, 4 Mee. & W. 419.

The legislature cannot change the legal presumptions of evidence, nor declare that an individual shall be deemed to be guilty of a particular crime or to owe a particular debt, until he proves the contrary. Wynehamer v. People, 13 N. Y. 447.

The plaintiff was not permitted under the law of Louisiana to contest the claim of the State, until he had given security for the payment of costs and penalties as a condition for having a hearing. The law, therefore, establishes one rule for the rich and another for the poor. He who has neither wealth, nor wealthy friends to become his sureties, is not allowed a hearing under any circumstances. This is not due process of law. Greene v. Briggs, 1 Curt. 325.

No counsel appeared for the defendant in error.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

title: McMillen v. Anderson


text: Talk:McMillen v. Anderson

title: Talk:McMillen v. Anderson


text:
McMillen v. Anderson/Opinion of the Court

The defendant, tax-collector of the State of Louisiana for the parish of Carroll, seized property of the plaintiff, and was about to sell it for the payment of the license tax of one hundred dollars, for which the latter, as a person engaged in business, was liable. In accordance with the laws of Louisiana, plaintiff brought an action in the proper court of the State for the trespass, and in the same action obtained a temporary injunction against the sale of the property seized. Defendant pleaded that the seizure was for taxes due, and that his duty as collector required him to make it. On a full hearing, the court sustained the defence, and gave a judgment under the statute against plaintiff and his sureties on the bond for double the amount of the tax, and for costs.

Plaintiff thereupon took an appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, and in his petition for appeal alleged that the law under which the proceedings of defendant were had is void, because it is in conflict with the Constitutions of Louisiana and of the United States, and, as he now argues, is specifically opposed to the provision of the [[Additional amendments to the United States Constitution#Amendment XIV|Fourteenth Amendment]] of the latter, which declares that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, to which the present writ of error is directed, affirming that of the inferior court, must be taken as conclusive on all the questions mooted in the record except this one. It must, therefore, be conceded that plaintiff was liable to the tax; that, if the law which authorized the collector to seize the property is valid, his proceedings under it were regular; and that the judgment of the court was sustained by the facts in the case.

Looking at the Louisiana statute here assailed-the act of March 14, 1873,-we feel bound to say, that, if it is void on the ground assumed, the revenue laws of nearly all the States will be found void for the same reason. The mode of assessing taxes in the States by the Federal government, and by all governments, is necessarily summary, that it may be speedy and effectual. By summary is not meant arbitrary, or unequal, or illegal. It must, under our Constitution, be lawfully done.

But that does not mean, nor does the phrase 'due process of law' mean, by a judicial proceeding. The mation from whom we inherit the phrase 'due process of law' has never relied upon the courts of justice for the collection of her taxes, though she passed through a successful revolution in resistance to unlawful taxation. We need not here go into the literature of that constitutional provision, because in any view that can be taken of it the statute und r consideration does not violate it. It enacts that, when any person shall fail to refuse or pay his license tax, the collector shall give ten days' written or printed notice to the delinquent requiring its payment; and the manner of giving this notice is fully prescribed. If at the expiration of this time the license 'be not fully paid, the tax-collector may, without judicial formality, proceed to seize and sell, after ten days' advertisement, the property' of the delinquent, or so much as may be necessary to pay the tax and costs.

Another statute declares who is liable to this tax, and fixes the amount of it. The statute here complained of relates only to the manner of its collection.

Here is a notice that the party is assessed, by the proper officer, for a given sum as a tax of a certain kind, and ten days' time given him to pay it. Is not this a legal mode of proceeding? It seems to be supposed that it is essential to the validity of this tax that the party charged should have been present, or had an opportunity to be present, in some tribunal when he was assessed. But this is not, and never has been, considered necessary to the validity of a tax. And the fact that most of the States now have boards of revisers of tax assessments does not prove that taxes levied without them are void.

Nor is the person charged with such a tax without legal remedy by the laws of Louisiana. It is probable that in that State, as in others, if compelled to pay the tax by a levy upon his property, he can sue the proper party, and recover back the money as paid under duress, if the tax was illegal.

But however that may be, it is quite certain that he can, if he is wrongfully taxed, stay the proceeding for its collection by process of injunction. See Fouqua's Code of Practice of Louisiana, arts. 296-309, inclusive. The act of 1874 recognizes this right to an injunction, and regulates the proceedings when issued to stay the collection of taxes. It declares that they shall be treated by the courts as preferred cases, and imposes a double tax upon a dissolution of the injunction.

But it is said that this is not due course of law, because the judge granting the injunction is required to take security of the applicant, and that no remedial process can be within the meaning of the Constitution which requires such a bond as a condition precedent to its issue.

It can hardly be necessary to answer an argument which excludes from the definition of due process of law all that numerous class of remedies in which, by the rules of the court or by legislative provisions, a party invoking the powers of a court of justice is required to give that security which is necessary to prevent its process from being used to work gross injustice to another.

Judgment affirmed.


text: Talk:McMillen v. Anderson/Opinion of the Court


text:
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 42.djvu/128

 deposited in parchment bags suspended on the walls of his room. In this way he covered several quires of paper with laborious collections for a complete Life of 'Shakespeare,' and from these notes Isaac Reed made extractswhich are included among the 'Additional Anecdotes' appended to Rowe's life of the poet. At this period Oldys frequently passed his evenings at the house of John Taylor the oculist of Hatton Garden, where he always preferred the fireside in the kitchen, so that he might not be obliged to mingle with the other visitors. His last literary production was ' The Life of Charles Cotton,' prefixed to Sir John Hawkins's edition of Walton's 'Compleat Angler,' 1760. He died at his apartments in the College of Arms on 15 April 1761, and was buried on the 19th in the north aisle of the church of St. Beuet, Paul's Wharf. His friend John Taylor on 20 June 1761 administered as principal creditor, defrayed the funeral expenses, and obtained possession of his official regalia, books, and valuable manuscripts. The original painting of Oldys, formerly belonging to Taylor, was believed in 1862 to be in the possession of Mr. J. H. Burn of Bow Street. An engraving from it by Balston appeared in the 'European Magazine' for November 1796.

Some of the printed books belonging to Oldys were enriched with manuscript additions of great value. His first annotated copy of Langbaine's 'Dramatick Poets' passed out of his hands [see, the younger]. In 1727 he purchased a second Langbaine,and continued to annotate it till the latest period of his life. This copy was purchased by Dr. Birch, who bequeathed it to the British Museum. It is not interleaved, but filled with notes written in the margins and between the lines in an extremely small hand. Birch granted the loan of it to Dr. Percy, bishop of Dromore, who made a transcript of the notes into an interleaved copy of Langbaine in 4 vols. 8vo. It was from Bishop Percy's copy that Joseph Haslewood annotated his Langbaine, which is now in the British Museum. George Steevens likewise made a transcript of Oldys's notes into a copy of Langbaine, which is also now in the British Museum, having passed through the hands of Sir Samuel Brydges and Dr. Bliss. Malonc, Isaac Reed, and the Rev. Rogers Ruding [q. v.] also made transcripts of Oldys's notes. The Malone transcript is now at Oxford, but Ruding's has not been traced. In Heber's' Catalogue' (pt. iv. No. 1215) is noticed another copy of Langbaine, with many important additions by Oldys, Steevens, and Reed. In 1845 Edward Vernon Utterson had an interleaved Langbaine, but it is not known what became of it. It is hardly possible to take up any work on the history of the stage or the lives of our dramatists without finding these curious collections of Oldys quoted to illustrate some obscure point.

Oldys also annotated a copy of Fuller's 'Worthies of England' (1662), and the notes were transcribed by George Steevens into his own copy of that work, which Malone afterwards purchased for 43l. A copy of Bishop Nicolson's 'Historical Library' (1736), with a great number of manuscript additions and references by Oldys, is preserved in the British Museum. He also annotated 'England's Parnassus' (1600), and discovered the fact that its compiler was Robert Allott [q. v.] This volume belonged successively to Thomas Warton and Colonel Stanley, at whose sale in 1813 it was purchased by Mr. R. Triphook for thirteen guineas.

Among the works he left in manuscript are: 1. Extracts for a work to be entitled 'The Patron ; or a Portraiture of Patronage and Dependency, more especially as they appear in their Domestick Light and Attitudes,' Addit, MS. 12523. 2. 'Of London Libraries: with Anecdotes of Collectors of Books, Remarks on Booksellers, and of the first Publishers of Catalogues.' Appended to Yeowell's 'Memoir of Oldys,' pp. 58-109. 3. 'Catalogue of Books and Pamphlets relating to the City of London,' fol. This was lent by Steevens to Richard Gough [q. v.] who made use of it in compiling his 'British Topography.' The manuscript was subsequently in Sir John Hawkins's library, which was destroved by fire. 4. 'Memoirs relating to the Family of Oldys,' Addit, MS. 4240. The anecdotes relating to Dr. Oldys the civilian are printed in the ' Gentleman s Magazine,' 1784, pt. i. p. 329. 5. A collection of poems by Oldys. 6. Diary, appended to Yeowell's 'Memoir of Oldys,' pp. 1-29. This diary was discovered in a commonplace book of the Rev. John Bowie (1725-1788) [q. v.], usually called Don Bowie, now in the British Museum (Addit. MS. 22667). It was first printed in 'Notes and Queries' for February 1861. 7. Adversaria, from which a selection of' Choice Notes' was printed by Yeowell in 'Notes and Queries for 1861, and subsequently appended to the 'Memoir,' pp. 30-57. [Memoir by James Yeowell contributed to Notes and Queries, January and February 1862, and afterwards reprinted under the title of A Literary Antiquary: Memoir of William Oldys, Norroy King-at-Arms, London, 1862, 8vo;


text:
Pratt v. Grand Trunk Railway Company

ERROR to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. William Jennison for the plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Isaac P. Christiancy, contra.

MR. JUSTICE HUNT delivered the opinion of the court.

title: Pratt v. Grand Trunk Railway Company


text: Talk:Pratt v. Grand Trunk Railway Company