Macon beacon. [volume] (Macon, Miss.) 1859-1995, 1877-06-16
The Mobile 6 Ohio Railroad Cases.


The mobile & ONO hallEOda V1SCS'
Mobile Registcr.]
U. s. CIRCUIT CouRr. - Hons. Jas
ttcs Bradley and Judge Woods on the
Benth.-ThiS Court convened yes
terday at 10 o'clock, when the case
Of Duncan 4 Elliott, Trustees, vs..
The Mobile and Ohio Railroad Co,
was called. Justice Bradley an
nounccd that, at his request, Judge
Woods had consented to sit With
him pending tho lriat Of the cause.
The history Of the litigation is,ln
briui, as follows ::
A bill was fled bJ Duncan & FL
lott, in which they sought td5tore'
close the first mortgage, in theWca'
pacity as Trustees. Under thatsu't
they have held possession OF the
road for some time past. Mr.. Nor
rIs Ketchum, to whom the first
mortgage was originally executed,
rs Trustee, filed q bill in the United
States Circuit Court, to tOlecloso
that mortgage, as Trustee for tho
bondholdcrs. Various proceedings
were had in tho suit, involving the
title to the Trustecship to the road
Conflicting decisions upon the cues.
ton of legal title having been rem
dorcd by The Judges of this Fede-
raj Circuit, Il bill was flied by the
Swiss boudhoIdcrs, headed by DO,
relli zeiglcr, Tor the same purpose
-ot torecIosing the first mortgage
and obtaining ayalii tide to the
property. 80
To this bill, the three different
sets OF trustees were all mnde par
ties, including Walsh aud Others,
who were appointed by the Alaba'
ma Court in 1863 during the lato
war; This bondholdcrs' suit pray
ed to cnion the prosecution OF suits
by the various Trustees, sought to
ouiet the title to the railroad, BY
barring all Of them under the de-
cree in the ZlegIer suit.
Besides this technical question
the substantial controversy invol'
we'd in these various questions, are
the validity of what Is known at
the Duncan coupons of 1874, and
the Tennessee Substitution Bonds,
amounting, in tho aggregate, tc
nearly 100000.
In the suit brought by Duncan
the Tennessee claims are set up Al
prior TO the first mortgage and cOu
pons of 1874, as Of equal rank will
the first mortgage.
In the suits of Ketchum and Zei
gler, the first mortgage claimed t
be paramount to all other ~Outstand
ing securities. '
In this condition Of the litigation
these matters were presented TO
the adjudication Of tho Court, whicl
sat yesterday and which was pre-
sided over by the learned Judges
Bradley and Woods. Without fol
lowing the discussion in its details
the result can be thus summed up
The Court held that it would b
proper to attain the substantial end
, Of Justice, that all three Of thes
suits for the foreclosure q, the.tirs
mortgage, should proceed concur
} rontly-should be had together
and that II decree should be SlmU
taneously entered under all of tn
different claims. Of title, SO. th9t til
purchasers Of the road-.whOevG
they might1bc-cGT receive q cIog
and unqucstionabIc titletothe1 pro-
erty. 1t was therefore ordered thu
: all plcadings shonld be. prompl
filed, so that the cause may I
brought to an issue immediately
! ThCreupOn, it is understood Alst
d the Court will hear argument uPyl
a the equities and priorities involves
and will determine whether tt
u Tennessee claims and the Dunca
coupons stand Jon ms good foop1
: a. the first mortgage sterling bond
When the judgment Of the cou
d may be rendered upon these impo
Lant and substantial questions, u d
It cree will DO entered accordingly,
g all of the three pending suits, al
s tho roa'i will DO ordered to be SO
l. according to the decision rcndOre
VI - ;.-,E r~t.4,
:, The Mobile Register, June 18th.
a We publish this morning tho
! piniOn Of Justice Bradley in Il
Mobile and Ohio railroad case.
briet, he finds no necessity for a
4. Indicating as to tho trustees, nor
4 TO tho claim of priority of tho Tie
=. nessee substitution bonds. Up
- A. IL. ILL ~ n ~ EsA1I