Legal Opinion

Central National Bank v. Bateman & Companies, Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided October 28, 1925PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

There is no controversy between the trustee under the indenture of mortgage and the individual bondholders who through a committee representing them have appeared by their solicitors. The bondholders take the same position as does the trustee. The receivers contend that the distribution of the sum allowable for the bonds should be, not to the trustee in behalf of all bondholders, but to each bondholder in the several amounts respectively found to be due them. In this, I think, the receivers are in error. The bonds on their face make reference to the mortgage for the rights of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Thomas v. Western Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Chemical Nat. Bank v. ArmstrongCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893
  3. People v. . American Loan Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902
  4. First Nat. Bank of Houston v. Campbell Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1908
  5. Spring Coal Co. v. KeechCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1916

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Board of Com'rs of Sweetwater County, Wyo. v. BernardinCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1934
  2. Iowa-Wisconsin Bridge Co. v. Phoenix Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1942
  3. Noble v. European Mortgage & Investment Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
  4. American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1939
  5. In Re Fader Motor CompanyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1968

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API