PENN
v.
CALHOUN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The People's Bank of Belleville sought to recover a $40,000 loan it made to the Southeastern Railway Company by intervening in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding and claiming priority payment from the sale proceeds, arguing the money was lent to pay mortgage interest with the trustees' knowledge and that the company was insolvent at the time of the loan. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the bank's petition, holding that the bank was a general creditor without priority rights because the loaned funds were placed in the company's general treasury and used to pay various pressing debts, the bank relied on pledged bonds and note indorsers for security rather than the mortgaged property, and there was no evidence of fraud or improper use of earnings by the trustees.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a petition of intervention filed in a suit-for the foreclosure of mortgages of the Southeastern Bailway Company, asking payment from the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property of a debt' of $40,000 and interest, due from the company to the People’s Bank of Belleville for money lent. The case as presented here places the right of recovery entirely on the following grounds: 1. That the money was lent with the knowledge and consent of the mortgage trustees tó pay mortgage interest, and that it was actually used for that purpose, the earnings at the time being insufficient to meet both interest and expenses; 2. That the company was wholly insolvent when the loan was made, which was unknown to the bank, but known to the trustees, and for this reason the money ought to be restored to the bank from the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property; and 3, That the net earnings for the year during which the loan was made were used to pay interest on the mortgage debt and to make permanent and lasting improvements on the mortgaged property, instead of paying current debts.
The evidence shows that when the bank took the note which is the .basis of the present claim, $80,000 of the bonds of the consolidated mortgage, under which, with an earlier mortgage, the decree of foreclosure was had, were pledged by the company as security, and it fails entirely to satisfy us that any part of the money lent was used directly in the payment of mortgage interest. There is no doubt that the company was heavily in debt when the loan was made, and that it was struggling to maintain its credit, so as to float its consolidated bonds which were then on the market for sale. The‘money lent was put into the general fund in the treasury of the company and used like the rest to pay debts which were pressing. We are entirely satisfied that the bank expected to be paid out of the proceeds of the sales of the bonds, and not from the earnings. The current earnings were used, as it was supposed they would be, to make permanent and lasting improvements, buy additional rolling-stock, and keep down the interest on the early mortgages, so as to bolster up the credit of the company and make its consolidated bonds marketable. 'For-its ultimate security the bank relied on the indorsers of the note and the bonds, which were specially pledged for that purpose. There is not a particle of evidence to show any fraud or deception on the part of the trustees, and neither the current • income of the receivership nor that of the company has been employed in a way to deprive the bank of any of its equitable rights. The bank is, therefore, not entitled to payment out of the proceeds of the sale of the mortgaged property in preference to the bondholders. It occupies the position of a general creditor only. Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 255.
The decree of the Circuit Court dismissing the petition of intervention is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morgan's La. & Tex. R.R. & S.S. Co. v. Tex. Cent. Ry. Co., 137 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1890)…such a running account of five year’s duration represents money so applied to the current expenses, of the road, or so diverted therefrom to the payment of interest on the bonds, as to carry with it a superior equity for repayment. Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U. S. 251; Kneeland v. American Loan and Trust Co., 136 U. S. 89; St. Louis, Alton &c. Railroad v. Cleveland, Columbus &c. Railway, 125 U. S. 658. It is to be observed, also, that the Morgan Company counted upon the certificates of the Texas Company, whereby…
-
Gregg v. Metro. Tr. Co., 197 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1905)
-
In re Boston & Me. Corp., 634 F.2d 1359 (1st Cir. 1980)…t on the ground that the terms of the contract for the cars demonstrated that the vendor relied on the security of the cars themselves and not on the interposition of a court of equity.22 149 U.S. at 112, 13 S.Ct. at 831. Similarly, Penn v. Calhoun, 121 U.S. 251, 7 S.Ct. 906, 30 L.Ed. 915 (1887), and, later, Lackawanna Iron & Coal Co. v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 176 U.S. 298, 20 S.Ct. 363, 44 L.Ed. 475 (1900), rejected priority claims where, in the first case, the creditor took as security bonds of the ra…1 / 3