Lloyd v. Chesapeake, O. & S. W. R.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky
This was a suit by Joseph P. Lloyd.and James B. Hawes, trustees, against the Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad Company for the foreclosure of a second mortgage. Plaintiffs move for directions to the receivers in possession of the road to pay interest on the first mortgage bonds. December 28, 1893, O. P. Huntington, upon a bill and amended bill filed by him against the Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad Company, obtained appointment of receivers.
Read the full summary
This was a suit by Joseph P. Lloyd.and James B. Hawes, trustees, against the Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad Company for the foreclosure of a second mortgage. Plaintiffs move for directions to the receivers in possession of the road to pay interest on the first mortgage bonds. December 28, 1893, O. P. Huntington, upon a bill and amended bill filed by him against the Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad Company, obtained appointment of receivers. The claims asserted by him were a judgment, certain equipment notes, and a majority of the second mortgage bonds. At this time there was…
1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge
(orally). The first question arises upon the bill of foreclosure filed by Joseph P. Lloyd and James B. Hawes, trustees under a second mortgage made by the Chesapeake, Ohio & Southwestern Railroad Company. I think there ought not to be an independent 'receivership under this bill. That would require the discharge of the receivers heretofore appointed, and the winding up of that receivership, for there could not be two independent receiverships of the same property. The proper practice is to extend the receivership already in existence to this second foreclosure suit, and that the two cases be…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Miltenberger v. Logansport Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Jackson v. LudelingSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Kneeland v. LuceSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Park v. New York, L. E. & W. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1894
3Cited by11 opinions
- American Brake Shoe & Foundry Co. v. Pere Marquette R.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913
- New York Security & Trust Co. v. Louisville, E. & St. L. Consol. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana · 1900
- Texas Co. v. International & G. N. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1916
- Booker v. CrockerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Cox v. SnowIdaho Supreme Court · 1929
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.