Gregg v. Metropolitan Trust Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. This is a second appeal. In the former case we decided that preferential six months’ claimants had no preference over mortgagees in the proceeds of the corpus of the mortgaged railroad property, unless there had been a diversion of the current earnings which the mortgagees should equitably restore, and that the burden was upon such claimants to show such diversion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. This is a second appeal. In the former case we decided that preferential six months’ claimants had no preference over mortgagees in the proceeds of the corpus of the mortgaged railroad property, unless there had been a diversion of the current earnings which the mortgagees should equitably restore, and that the burden was upon such claimants to show such diversion. We reversed the former decree, denying a preference to Gregg and certain other claimants who had established debts entitled to preference of…
1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge
There is no surplus income arising from the operation of the receiver applicable to the payment of this or any other debt, nor .is it claimed that there was any diversion of income by the receiver, by which the mortgage creditor profited, upon which to found an equity against the bondholders. Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776, 782, 4 Sup. Ct. 675, 28 L. Ed. 596; International Trust Co. v. Townsend Brick Co., 95 Fed. 850, 37 C. C. A. 396, 405. The proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property are insufficient to pay the mortgage debts, and, if the appellant is to be paid at all, he must be paid…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Tilghman v. ProctorSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Kimberly v. ArmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Burnham v. BowenSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Greenhood and Others v. RandallSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- St. Louis, Alton & Terre Haute Railroad v. Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, & Indianapolis Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Chapin-Sacks Mfg. Co. v. Hendler Creamery Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1918
- In Re New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1967
- In Re Tennessee Central Railway CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1970
- Fordyce v. Omaha, Kansas City & E. R. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1906
- Continental Trust Co. v. W. R. Bonsal & Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1934
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.