The New York herald., 1877-09-11
THE COURTS.
Important Decision 10 DondhOlderS Of the Mobile
and Ohio Railroad Company.
RESPONSIBILITY OF EX-COLIECTORS.
Close Of Very Heavy Partition Suit
Against the City.
RESPONSIBILITY OF EX-COLIECTORS.
WARDS ISLAND WATER FRONT.

In tho important litigations which for some time
past have been pending in relation to the affairs Of the
Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company there arose the
question as to the right OF certain bondholderstho
majority OF whom reside in this cty--,o maint ain
prior lien on that portion Of tho road which runs
through the State OF Tennessee for the payment Of
bonds TO tho amount OF about 81 $4,000 When tho
road was being built in 1852 the State of Tennessee
issued certain bonds to aid In It's construction These
bonds were secured by a statutory lion incorporated
in an of the Tennessee Legislature. The third
iion Of the provides that the bonds issued by
State shall be lien issued, without deed or
mortgage. In 1871 the Tennessee Legislature enacted
that tho railroad company might deliver to the State
any State bonds without regard to tho railroad
which they were issued, aud that tho would be
received in ratification OF tho lien which had been
ierrcd by the previous act. The Mobile and Ohio
Company delivered to the State bonds which had bocn
issued behalf OF other roads, and thereafter ISSUED
now series Of bonds Of ito own, which claim to take
the place Of those State bonds which had been
issued behalf OF the road This suit Is
brought for foreclosure and sale of the road
On behalf Of these new bonds, leaving the original
bonds issued by the State still outstanding The ques
ton then before Judge Trigg, of the United
States Circuit Court, at Memphis recently, whether
tho old bond did not form lien the road. and
whether that lion could increased by the amount OF
tho new bonds against the rights OF other pond
OF importance TO all interested in the road In he
says:-'I have considered the case upon the papers
formerly read the answers flied at the recent term,
the agreed statements OF facts flied In writing and the
arguments of COUNSEL and upon the main and controIl
ing question in the case am Of opinion that tho lien
upon all that part OF the Mobile and ONO Railroad y
ing within SAID State under and by virtue Of the act
s inc na sbe aes tho
This lien, the opinion further holds, Is subsistng
and operative security until the debt IS paid or in
some other way extDguished by tho act Of
the parties; nor did tho transfer Of the
State lien from herself TO- the bonds issued
by the railroad company and to be substituted for the
bonds OF the State, operate payment and discharge
Of the roads indebtedness 10 tho State. To these
bonds Of the the lien OF tho State adheres with
interest at the rate of six per cent and decree will
bc entered for the face vaue OF the bonds OF the
pany so substituted with interest at that rate and for
the prior payment Of which decree is directed to DO
entered for the sale Of that portion of the road lying
within tho State Of Tennessee. From this decision
parties plantin in the suit who represent first mort
gage bondhoders, preparing to take appeal to
The Supreme Court OF tho United States, claiming that
Il conflict with very learned opinion recently
ivered by Mr.. Alston Prnglc, an eminent lawyer Of
South Garo1s when acting as master in
road, IN which tho heirs Of the late Francis
3. Cutting, OF this city, G. A. Trenholm. Con-
largely interested In that litigation 1t claimed the
question involved Identical with that involved in
the Mobile and Ohio suit passed upon by Judge Trgg,
and the decision the very opposite In the Charleston
case 1t was held that the bondhodcrs held the lien
created by statute, and not the State. subsequent
OF tho South Carolina Legislature comforting the
licr upon a new issue OF bonds by the company was
held TO be imperative as against The old bondhoders
secured by the statutory cn The master likewise
held that the clause In tho original act rcserving
right to the State enact all laws necessary protect
its interests did not authorize IT TO interfere with the
lien that had been created favor Of tho bondhoders
The effect Of Judge Triggs decision, the appellants
claim, would bc that If the Ole bondhoders VI rennes
see should proceed to enforce their claims as have
those OF South Carolina the claims against the Mobile
and Ohio road would be duplicated This it is sought
TO avoid by appeal to the Supreme Court OF the
United States.
SUITS AGAINST EX-COLLECTORS.
Ex.Collectors Hiram Barney, Augustus Schell and
the late Herman J. Redheld indeed all others who
from time TO time have held the same position IN tho
port Of New York, had numerous suits brought
against them by merchants claiming to be reimbursed
Tor overcharges in duties. These overchargcs have
always been tho result of misnerpretaton of the not
inircquontly obscure provisions oil the Tariff act
When brought before the the Interpretation of
tho Collector is sometimes sustained and sometimes
reversed, with personal judgment against him. Tho
statute provides that when such personal judgment
shall be rendered against collector. ana that he
rrs pa tne sS be n0 nH m
from the Court certificate OF probable cause which
will protect him against personal liability. In some
OF these suits against Mcssrs. Barney Schel and Red
field, involving in all about $500 00O judgments
obtained ugairst all three about two years ago
ing to about $4,000 portion OF these were paid by
the Secretary OF the Treasury but recently there
occurred hitch in that quarter on the alleged ground
oil want OF appropriations. counsel Or some OF the
plaintiffs tnercupon evIea on the property OF Augustus
Schc and Hiram Barney, they having omitted TO
procure certificates of probable cause from the
Court so as to exempt them from personal
liability Yesterday District Attorney woodford made
motion, before Judge Batchford, the United States
District Court, for certificates Of probable IN
favor OF the three exCollectors, claiming that II was
right under the statute the surplus having
shown 10 have been paid into the United States
Treasury. After argument Judge Blatcniord granted
The motion IN two cases against the late Collector Red
Geld, and there was at tue same me submitted six
cases against Messrs Barney ana Sche, in which,
cded no doubt is entertained that the order will
be made.
WATER FRONT OF WARDS ISLAND.
In the we'll known SUIT Of Beach We. The Mayor Mr.
Dennis McMahon, of counsel for tho plaintiff, moved
yesterday, before Judge Westbrook, for the final udg
mont Of partition 1t was said to be the heaviest par
tition tnat has appeared in the many
years past therc being sixteen counsel engaged IN II
ior the different parties IL is 10 partition all the lands
between high aud low water mark and outside OF low
water marx 800 feet around Wards formerly Great
Barn) Island. 1t involves eightyeight Of land
altogether, presenting over $4,000 feet Of water front
In narbor, the value of which IN the future
Is ncalcuable II our city continues to
t,n's share in this water front, allowed
by the Commissioners, is over twenty-five
acres. Judge Ingraham In 1872 decided that the
plaintiff was entitled to his judgment tor partition.
only just made their report On that report paintn's
counsel made his motion to confirm the report and tor
decree. Judge Westbrook granted the motion This
case and final decision are specially important not
sum OF money to be paid, but as precedent in 175
similar suits pending against the city to which the
present decision will apply as a test SUIT