HALE
v.
FROST
Mr. Chief Justice Waite announced the decision of the court.
- The first question certified in this case is answered in the affirmative, upon the authority of Fosdick v. Schall, supra, p. 235.
The third question is answered in the same way upon the same authority. The Union Car-Spring Manufacturing Company is entitled to payment in full, and Hale, Ayer, & Co. to payment of so much of their claim only as is for supplies to the machinery department. There is nothing in the case to show any special equities in their favor in respect to that part of their account which is for material for construction purposes.
An answer to the second question is unnecessary.
The several decrees appealed from will be reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to enter decrees in favor of the appellants for the amount due them respectively from the fund in court, upon the principles settled by the answers which are’ given to the questions certified; and it is iSo ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Carpenter v. Wabash Ry. Co., 309 U.S. 23 (U.S. 1940)…28] operated by its receivers, “are not necessarily and exclusively the property of the mortgagees” but are subject to the payment of claims which have superior equities as these may be found to exist. Fosdick v. Schall, 99 U. S. 235; Hale v. Frost, 99 U. S. 389, 392. Claims having such equities may be accorded priority in payment although they arose prior to the receivership. Miltenberger v. Logansport Railway Co., 106 U. S. 286; Burnham v. Bowen, 111 U. S. 776; Union Trust Co. v. Illinois Midland Ry. Co.,…
-
Morgan's La. & Tex. R.R. & S.S. Co. v. Tex. Cent. Ry. Co., 137 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1890)
-
S. Ry. Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co., 176 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1900)…f this power errors are committed, they, like others, are open to correction on appeal. All depends upon a proper application of well-settled rules of equity jurisprudence to the facts of the case, as established by the evidence.” In Hale v. Frost, 99 U. S. 389, it appeared that a receiver was appointed in a suit brought by trustees to foreclose mortgages executed by a railroad company. He was appointed May 19, 1875, at which time the company owed employes for back wages and was indebted for current suppli…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence