Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1856-09-11
:
Important Railroad Decision

|
Thatcher Perkins In the Court of Com
vs.. .. mon Pleas of Muskin-
Joseph G. Stanley. gum Co., May Term.
This was an action to recover personal
property. ...-.
1t appeared in evidence that the plaintiff
was appointed Superintendent of the Cen
tial Ohio Railroad Company early in De
cember, 1855, and shortly thereafter went
to Baltimore to purchase lot of steel
amounting to about 5000, to be used in
the repair Of engines belonging to the
Company. The credit of the Company
was low, and the owner of the steel refused
to sell upon credit 10 the Company, but
agreed TO sell to the plaintiff upon his in
dividual acceptance at three months.
This was done, the bill drawn and ac-
cepted, the amount made out against the
plaintiff, and the steel sent to GAINESVILLE.
directed to the Railroad Company, where
it was received and partially Used in the
repairs Of the Company's engines. The
plaintiff paid his acceptance at maturity,
with his own funds, but expected the Com
pany to reimburse him at some period.
The defendant proved that he had an
execution against the Company, and claim
ed the right TO levy on the steel as proper
ty Of the Railroad Company. I'll
The plaintiff then gave in evidence the
mortgage executed by George S. Coe,
Trustee of the bond-holders, and proved
The isstle Of bonds to the amount OF two
millions of dollars. The mortgages in
terms convey the present and future to be
acquired property, both personal and real,
of the Company, to Mr.. Coe. The last of
these mortgages bears date in October,
1855, two months before the purchase of
the steel Upon this evidence, the plain
| tiff claimed that in the event of the jury
finding n verdict for the defendant. such
verdict should only be for nominal dam
aces. ......
The road is TO berun TO earn revenue, aud
an attempt to seize the road or its equip
ments, or It's materials, for repairs, or its
tolls for freight and passengers, is fatal to
the rights of the mortgagee. Nor does
the assertion of lis principle enable a Rail
road Company to set It's creditors at de-
fiance. Whenever its crelitors are ofopin-
ion that its affairs will be better managed
10y Court of Equity than by the Directors,
We may expect them to apply for the ap-
pointment of Receiver.
Judge Searle charged the jury, that if
they were of the opinion that the defend
ants title to the property should prevail,
then the amount of damages TO be award
ed would be the value of the steel, or the
amount ofthe execution, whichsoever should
be the smallest sum, had there been no eyi-
dence of the mortgages. The court then fur
ther charged the jury, that if they found
that mortgages had been executed and
bonds issued as claimed by plaintiff, then
the defendant could only recover nominal
damages, inasmuch rs the execution could
have produced no fruits. In the case of II
Railroad mortgage, covering It's road, roll
inc stock, materials for repairs, tolls, prof
its, rents, 6c., &C., &c., Il levy upon n part
could no; effect the mortgaGce's rights. y
creditor of the company having no mort
gage could not compel the mortgagee to
surrender u portion ot his security upon