Continental Trust Co. v. Toledo, St. L. & K. C. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio
This cause comes before this court upon several motions made by the Rhode Island National Bank, Jules S. Bache, and others, creditors of the Toledo, St, Louis & Kansas City Railroad Company, the purport of which can hardly be understood without a short statement of the course of the litigation: On May 13, 1893, Stout and Purdy, citizens of New York, filed a creditors’ bill against the defendant company (hereafter called the “Kansas City Company”), which was a consolidated…
Read the full summary
This cause comes before this court upon several motions made by the Rhode Island National Bank, Jules S. Bache, and others, creditors of the Toledo, St, Louis & Kansas City Railroad Company, the purport of which can hardly be understood without a short statement of the course of the litigation: On May 13, 1893, Stout and Purdy, citizens of New York, filed a creditors’ bill against the defendant company (hereafter called the “Kansas City Company”), which was a consolidated corporation, organized under the laws of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. The complainants were judgment creditors, and filed…
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). The motion to dismiss the foreclosure bill must be denied. It is conceded that the court had jurisdiction of the creditors’ bill tiled by Stout and Purdy, and that, at the time when the trustees under the mortgage filed their foreclosure hill, all the property of the railroad covered by the mortgage was in the possession of this court, by its receiver. The trustees could obtain no substantial relief by a foreclosure of the mortgage and a sale of the road in a state court, so long as this court had possession of it. To avoid injustice, this court was…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Norton v. Shelby CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Scott v. NeelySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Thomson v. WoosterSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- State v. CarrollSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871
- Whitehead v. ShattuckSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Alexander v. HillmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit City Service Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Mitchell v. CarterSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- Board of Drainage Com'rs of Pender County Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Lafayette Southside Bank of St. LouisCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1928
- Lee v. CameronSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1917
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.