FLEMING
v.
SOUTTER
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.
Fleming appealed orders from a mortgage foreclosure case involving the La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company, challenging two successive sale orders entered when the railroad defaulted on interest payments due in September 1866 and March 1867. The Supreme Court examined the proceedings and affirmed both orders, finding them consistent with the underlying foreclosure decree and properly entered after notice and hearing.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice NELSON stated the facts and delivered the opinion of the court.
These are appeals from decretal orders made in the case of Soutter, survivor, &c., v. The La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company and others. That suit was instituted for the foreclosure of a mortgage on the Eastern Division of the road of the La Crosse and Milwaukee Company, and a decree had been entered in the Circuit Court in pursuance of a mandate from this court, in which it was directed that the complainant shall be at liberty, when further instalments of interest should become due and unpaid, to apply for an order for the sale of the said mortgaged premises in accordance with the mandate. On the 18th September, 1866, an order was entered directing a sale of the premises on account of default' in the payment of $40,000, an instalment of interest that had become due on the first of the same month, which order was entered on petition and due notice, aud after argument by counsel. The first two appeals were taken from this order. A second default was made in payment of another instalment on the first of March, 1867, and after hearing the parties on both sides, an order for a sale was made on the fifth of the same month. The third appeal is from this order. We have examined the proceedings to which objections have been taken, and are of opinion that they are in conformity with the principal decree in the cause, and that the order should be
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Plum Creek Lumber Co. v. Hutton, 608 F.2d 1283 (9th Cir. 1979)…estern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 88 S.Ct. 1994, 20 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1968); Permian Basin Area Rate Cases, 390 U.S. 747, 88 S.Ct. 1344, 20 L.Ed.2d 312 (1968); American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 387 U.S. 397, 87 S.Ct. 1608, 18 L.Ed. 847 (1967). Here, Congress specifically stated that the Secretary was to promulgate as a safety and health standard “any national consensus standard, and any established Federal standard.” 29 U.S.C. § 655(a). It then went on to define the term “national…
-
Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. Price, 106 F.2d 411 (4th Cir. 1939)…provision for the enforcement of rights to accrue in the future under the instruments sued on, if proper basis therefor is laid in the pleadings. 10 R.C.L. 559; 21 C.J. 664; Randel v. Brown, 2 How. 406, 11 L.Ed. 318; Fleming v. Soutter, 6 Wall. 747, 18 L.Ed. 847; Dancel v. Goodyear Machinery Co., C.C., 137 F. 157; City of Denver v. Mercantile Trust Co., 8 Cir., 201 F. 790; Superior Oil & Gas Co. v. Mehlin, 25 Okl. 809, 108 P. 595, 138 Am.St.Rep. 942. We think, however, that the language of the decree is too…