Muren v. Southern Coal & Mining Co.
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Hugo Muench, Judge. (1) It is entirely competent for tlie bondholders to agree among themselves upon what conditions any individual bondholder may exercise his right of action, and a provision in a mortgage that no proceeding at law or in equity shall be taken by any bondholder until, after the refusal of the trustee to comply with the demand of a certain percentage of the bonds for the trustee to bring action upon the bonds or…
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court.—Hon. Hugo Muench, Judge. (1) It is entirely competent for tlie bondholders to agree among themselves upon what conditions any individual bondholder may exercise his right of action, and a provision in a mortgage that no proceeding at law or in equity shall be taken by any bondholder until, after the refusal of the trustee to comply with the demand of a certain percentage of the bonds for the trustee to bring action upon the bonds or mortgage is reasonable and valid. Such provisions do not divest bondholders of any common law rights, nor attempt to…
1Opinion of the Court
NORTON!, J.
This is a suit at law for the recovery of a judgment on twenty coupons representing accrued interest on certain mortgage bonds of defendant. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.
Defendant is an incorporated coal company and on October 2,1905 it issued bonds to the amount of one million, one hundred thousand dollars, all of which are secured by a mortgage upon its property situate in the State of Hlinois. The Mercantile Trust Company of the city of St. Louis is the trustee in the mortgage. At the time the bonds and mortgage were executed, plaintiff was vice…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chicago & Vincennes Railroad v. FosdickSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Seibert v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
- Kimber v. Gunnell Gold Min. & Mill. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1903
- Guilford v. Minneapolis, S. Ste. M. & A. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Manning v. Norfolk Southern R. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Virginia · 1887
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Harris v. Union Electric Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1981
- Monticello Building Corp. v. Monticello Investment Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- Home Mortg. Co. v. RamseyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1931
- Noble v. European Mortgage & Investment Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1933
- Jones v. Atlantic & Western RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.