Central Trust Co. v. Texas & St. L. Ry. Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Missouri
In Equity. Foreclosure suit. Motion for leave to file an answer. A receiver was appointed in this case, with the consent of the defendant, January 12, 1884, and all succeeding steps in the case have been thken without any opposition on the defendant’s part.
Read the full summary
In Equity. Foreclosure suit. Motion for leave to file an answer. A receiver was appointed in this case, with the consent of the defendant, January 12, 1884, and all succeeding steps in the case have been thken without any opposition on the defendant’s part. No answer has been filed, nor was leave to file answer asked, until May 4, 1885, when the defendant, by its attorney, asked leave to file an answer, claiming that this suit was not instituted by the trustee for the purpose of carrying out and executing the conditions of the mortgage in good faith, but to promote a certain scheme, which…
1Opinion of the Court
Treat, J., (orally.)
There is an application to the court for leave to file an answer in the case of the Central Trust Company against the Texas & St. Louis .Railway Company. I have noted the points to be considered in the case. The first order in this case was made by Judge McCbaby, and recited the express consent of the defendant. This application now before the court is by the defendant itself, which seeks, after this lapse of time, to be permitted to come in to dispute what it expressly assented to and agreed should be recited in the original decree. The question of laches is apparent. No…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hotel Management Co. v. KricklSupreme Court of Florida · 1934
- Guardian Trust Co. v. White Cliffs Portland Cement & Chalk Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1901
- State Nat. Bank of Denison v. Syndicate Co. of Eureka SpringsU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Arkansas · 1910
- Oahu Railway & Land Co. v. ArmstrongHawaii Supreme Court · 1907