Foster v. Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railroad
Supreme Court of the United States
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. This was a bill in equity by a stockholder of the Mansfield, Coldwater and Lake Michigan Railroad Company to open the foreclosure of a mortgage upon its road executed'to George W. Cass and Thomas A. Scott, trustees, and to vacate the order of sale and all proceedings thereunder, upon the ground of fraud and collusion, and for a receiver and injunction.
Read the full summary
APPEAL PROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. This was a bill in equity by a stockholder of the Mansfield, Coldwater and Lake Michigan Railroad Company to open the foreclosure of a mortgage upon its road executed'to George W. Cass and Thomas A. Scott, trustees, and to vacate the order of sale and all proceedings thereunder, upon the ground of fraud and collusion, and for a receiver and injunction. The bill purported to be filed for the benefit of the plaintiff and.all other stockholders of the defendant company, and, after averring a written request to…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Beown
The bill in this case was dismissed in the court below upon the ground of laches, and also for the want of equity. The propriety of this action is now before us for review.
As the alleged fraudulent sale of this road, which constitutes the gravamen of the bill, took place August 28, 1877, and the bill was not filed until. August 30,1887, ten years thereafter, there is certainly a presumption of laches, which it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to rebut. ■ His reply is that he did not discover the fraud until a few months before the filing. of the bill. The allegation of the original bill in…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Bailey v. GloverSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Hammond v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Felix v. PatrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Hoyt v. LathamSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
3Cited by113 opinions
- Holmberg v. ArmbrechtSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Johnston v. Standard Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. AustinSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Cravens L. Wanlass, Energystics, Inc. And Wanlass International, Inc. v. General Electric CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1998
- Halstead v. GrinnanSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
108 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.