Shaw v. Railroad Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
These cases present tbe following facts : — By an act approved Feb. 9, 1853 (10 Stat. 155), Congress granted lands to tbe State of Arkansas to aid in building a railroad. Power was given tbe State to sell tbem only as tbe road was completed in sections of twenty miles eacb. If tbe road was not finished in a specified time, all lands not sold were to revert to tbe United States.
Read the full summary
These cases present tbe following facts : — By an act approved Feb. 9, 1853 (10 Stat. 155), Congress granted lands to tbe State of Arkansas to aid in building a railroad. Power was given tbe State to sell tbem only as tbe road was completed in sections of twenty miles eacb. If tbe road was not finished in a specified time, all lands not sold were to revert to tbe United States. A part of tbe lands thus donated by Congress were granted by tbe State to tbe Little Rock and Fort Smith Railroad Company. On the 22d of December, 1869, the railroad company executed a mortgage on its railroad,…
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Waite
We think it clear that the appellants are not entitled to the relief they ask. They were not parties to the original suits, except through their trustees, against whom they make no chai'ges. Indeed, their counsel says in his brief, “ It is probable that they [the trustees] believed that they were doing the best possible for their beneficiaries.” The trustee of a railroad mortgage represents the bondholders in all legal proceedings carried on by him affecting his trust, to which they are not actual parties,, and whatever binds him, if he acts in good faith, binds them. If a bondholder not a…
2Cited by78 opinions
- Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. RadfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Heckman v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. SchendelSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. United States Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1990
- City of Austin v. CahillTexas Supreme Court · 1905
73 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.