RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
JAMES

U.S. | 1867-12-01
6 Wall. 750 Supreme Court of the United States (1867) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 18 L. Ed. 854 · SCDB 1867-062 · 1867 U.S. LEXIS 1022
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

The La Crosse and Milwaukee Railroad Company's road-bed and rolling stock were subject to a judgment lien under Wisconsin law, and a subsequent judicial sale and conveyance in a chancery decree properly transferred the railroad's entire interest to the purchaser. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decrees, holding that rolling stock used in connection with the railroad constituted a fixture under Wisconsin law and was therefore subject to judgment liens on real estate.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Justice NELSON

Mr. Justice NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

The La Crosse and Milwaukee Company, by virtue of its charter and the proceedings under it, acquired a title in fee to the road-bed; and the rolling stock owned by it, and used and employed in connection with the road, is made a fixture by an express statute of the State of Wisconsin, and such, we think, is the law according to the true construction of the charter, independent of the statute.* By the statute law of Wisconsin judgments are liens on real estate, and we do not doubt but that this judgment became a lieu on the road from the time of its rendition, and that a sale under a decree in chancery, and conveyance in pursuance thereof, confirmed by the court, passed the whole of the interest of the company existing at the time of its rendition to the purchaser.†

A great many objections have been taken to the decrees below, but those of any substance or force will be found answered by the principles above stated.

Decrees affirmed.

*

Pennock v. Coe, 23 Howard, 117.

†

Pennock v. Coe, 23 Howard, 117 ; Gue v. Tide Water Canal Co., 24 Id. 257; 2 Redfield, 544 and n.; Covington Co. v. Shepherd, 21 Howard, 112; Macon and Western Railroad Co. v. Parker, 9 Georgia, 377

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Sage v. Memphis & Little Rock R.R. Co., 125 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1888)
  • Howard v. Ry. Co., 101 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1879)
    …rendition, and that a sale under a decree in chancery and a conveyance in pursuance thereof, confirmed by the court, passed the whole of the interest of the company, existing at the time of its rendition, to the purchaser. Railroad Company v. James, 6 Wall. 750. Weighed in view of that decision, it is clear that the suggestion of the plaintiff cannot be adopted. Failing in that, his next suggestion is that he is not. bound by the decree; inasmuch as he was not made a party to the suit which resulted in t…
  • Barnes v. Chicago, 122 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1887)
    …05; S. C. 2 Wall. 283; Milwaukee Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 2 Wall. 440; S. C. 2 Wall. 510; Graham v. Railroad Co., 3 Wall. 704; Milwaukee Railroad Co. v. Soutter, 5 Wall. 660; Railroad Companies v. Chamberlain, 6 Wall. 748; Railroad Company v. James, 6 Wall. 750; Railroad Company v. James et al., 6 Wall. 752. The amount of bonds authorized by the mortgage was [*18] $2,000,000. The proof is abundant that of this amount $1,010,400 were actually converted into stock, and that $730,400 had either been surrende…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw