Legal Opinion
Lorenz v. Stearns
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided June 7, 1932PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, C. J.
I. Questions have been raised as to the extent of the rights of the receiver and the bondholders, as compared with those of the Land company through which they claim. The receiver has the rights of the railway. The bondholders also stand upon the rights of their mortgagor, which is the same railway. The execution of the mortgage and sale of the bonds did not enlarge the mortgaged rights. The bondholders “contracted subject not paramount to the proviso for repeal.” Calder v. Michigan, 218 U. S. 591, 599. And by •express provision of the act authorizing the sale (Laws 1913, c. 332, s. 3) the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. City of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' Street Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Columbus Railway, Power & Light Co. v. City of ColumbusSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Greenwood v. Freight Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1882
- Stanislaus County v. San Joaquin & King's River Canal & Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Legislative Utility Consumers' Council v. Public Service Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- State v. New Hampshire Gas Electric Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1932
- Bacher v. Public Service Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Nelson v. Public Service Co.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- Inez Utzinger, Now Inez Hillis, as Admrx., Etc. And in Her Own Behalf, Libellant-Appellant v. United States v. Inez Utzinger, Now Inez Hillis, Admrx., Etc., Cross-Respondent-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1970
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.