Bell's v. St. Johnsbury & Lake Champlain Railroad
Supreme Court of Vermont
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the pleadings and masters’ report at the December Term, 1907, Caledonia County, Waterman, Chancellor. Decree for the orators. The defendant appealed. The two cases cited in the first paragraph of the opinion must be read in order fully to understand this case. If the mortgagees had any priority to the income during the pendency of the proceedings in the Poland case, it must be determined by the provisions of the mortgage.
Read the full summary
Appeal in Chancery. Heard on the pleadings and masters’ report at the December Term, 1907, Caledonia County, Waterman, Chancellor. Decree for the orators. The defendant appealed. The two cases cited in the first paragraph of the opinion must be read in order fully to understand this case. If the mortgagees had any priority to the income during the pendency of the proceedings in the Poland case, it must be determined by the provisions of the mortgage. Those provisions give them no lien or priority of claim upon income,. superior to the orator’s but, on the contrary, such lien or priority is…
1Opinion of the Court
Stanton, Superior Judge.
The orators are preferred creditors and their original bill under the provisions of Sec. 102, of Chapter 28, of the General Statutes, was brought to recover for services rendered and material furnished to keep the railroad now owned by the defendant in repair, and to run the same, before and at the time it went into the hands of receivers on October 18, 18-77.
In the opinion handed down when this case was before the Court in 1902, 76 Vt. 42, and in the case of Poland v. The Lamoille Valley R. R. Co. et al., 52 Vt. 144, referred to herein as the Poland case, there is a…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Southern Railway Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Danforth v. SmithSupreme Court of Vermont · 1851
- Poland v. Lamoille Valley RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1879
- Western Union Tel. Co. v. BullardSupreme Court of Vermont · 1895
- Eureka Marble Co. v. Windsor Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1874
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Prue v. Royer, Sr., and Department of Liquor ControlSupreme Court of Vermont · 2013
- Sprague v. ClarkSupreme Court of Vermont · 1868
- Roberts v. W. H. Hughes Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1913