Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-07-25
sAvANNAH RAILROAD CASE.
The Georgia PrOperty-Letter from
Hon. James B. Campbell.

Hon. James B. Campbell, one OF the lead
ing attorneys in the celebrated case of the
bondholders of the Savannah and Charlee
ton Railway, In correcting a statement in
the Nelos and Courier, as to bis appearing
with Judge Magrsth for the petitioners,
Kaufman ct al holders of s per cent. sa-
vannah and Charleston Railway bonds, be-
fore Judge Aldrlch on Saturday" says:
Judge Magrath and myself represent an
tigonist claimants for priority OF lien on the
Georgia part of the property. we only
agree that the Interpretation and meaning
OF Judgment of q South Carolina court Is
more properly referable TO Soutn OSIoiin"
court than to Georgia court.
cannot more briefly and easily explain
NV nositfon than l have done in the APP
nended letter to Messrs. BrawleY 81 Barn-
well:
CHARLESTON, 8. c., July 3, 1882.
DEAR SIRs-Messrs. Aiken and Williams,
surviving trustees for the holders of the z
per cent. mortgage bonds Of the Charleston
and Savannah Railroad Company, issued
under the act Of 1869, as a first lien security,
have referred to my professional attention
your letter to them Of July 30th, wherein
you inform them that at the hearing on
Monday last of the petition ex parte Kauf-
man ct al, no counsel appeared to represent
them, and in consequence of their default
the interests of their csStltf que trust seri-
ously endangered;n and also set forth for
their consideration sundry other opinions
and suggestions which 1t is not necessary to
repeat; l therefore only refer to them.
think the information, opinions, sugge5.
tions, advice and warnings you have so
kindly offered the trustees would have i'm
pressed them with deeper gravity If they
had not been compelled to know that you
represent interests entirely sntsgonistic to
those under their protection. / am sorry to
say that can find no reason for presump-
ton that when YOU wrote to them you were
ignorant that / represent them and their
ceStlLi que trust. as have done for several
years. l did not intend any counsel should
appear for them at the hearing.
do not agree that Kaufman's petition to
keep the rights Of the bondholders of all
classes within the Jurisdiction of our own
courts and out of the Georgia courts seri-
ously endangers the seven per cent. bond
holders. l think exactly the contrary, that
1t is not only their interest but in aid OF the
due administration OF the low of this case
that it be dealt with only by our courts,
where 1t has so long been pending.
The property In Georgia was sold under
decree OF our court subject to such liens as
have been, or may be, established under the
laws of that State. The cause was not re-
mitted to the courts of Georgia to interpret
the meaning of our court. II any liens have
been or shall be established, then the pur-
chaser takes title subject to such liens, and
he must satisfy them or they may be en-
forced against the property.
He has the right, title and interest of the
railroad company, no more.
There are three mortgage liens claiming,
namely: the statutory lien in favor Of the six
per cent. bonds, the mortgage to Aiken &
Williams (seven per cent. bonds) and the
mortgage to DeLeon and others to secure
eight per cent. bonds; also the Callahan
Judgment and some other judgments of
small amount. The claim Of the purchasers
whom you represent, as l understand It, is:
l. That the liens referred to in the order
of sale do not include the mortgages, and
that the judgments alone come within the
description; and
2 That the mortgages are eXtinguished
by the sale and are no longer liens upon the
property.
And, acting on this idea, they have al
ready In some way purchased the Judgment
which In the administration of their trust is
to be charged to the cost of the road. do
not agree to this, nor do l see the danger to
the sevens in avoiding the jurisdiction Of
the Georgia court, where in this cause
final decree of South Carolina court has
once already been dlsregarded and overrid
den contrary to law.
The whole matter resolved itself into the
single and very plain question, Shall the
purchasers, who are mere trustees for the
sizes and Se0e'lS till final decree fixing pri-
critics, assume and pay for account of their
trust the junior judgment liens, excluding
altogether the senior claims Of the skies,
sevens and Fights.
You support the affirmative. | take the
negative side of this question, insisting that
there is nothing in the decree OF our court to
warrant your view, and further that the
proper forum to try the meaning of our
court is that court itself, where l shall claim
that the liens upon the Georgia part, under
Georgia law, rank as follows: BSaS5, the
Seye1lS; second, the Fights; third, the judy
ments, and that the skies have no lien at all
in that State. But If they have any lien,
then it is first, by our decree Of September
80, 1879, under which, as the law OF the case
now stands and till final appellate decree,
the skies will take about one seventh and
the sevens the remainder of the Georgia
property. l am very respectfully yours,
JAMES B. CAMPBELL.
To MeSsrs BrdoCley d Bara1OeH, city.
The Callahan judgment above referred to
is for about the sum of $65, 900 in round
figures. The others are for small sums.
Execution under thea was enjoined in
Georgia some years since at the instance of
the parties represented by me. They are
all Junior in date to the mortgage liens, and
In record to the sevens and Fights. The six
per cent. lien has never. been recorded in
Georgia.
Representatives Of each one of these liens,
understanding It to be claimed in Georgia
that the order for the sale OF the road made
on circuit and confirmed on appeal had ex-
tinguished the mortgage liens and let in the
junior judgment to priority, applied to our
Supreme Court in April last to settle that
question.
There has not yet been filed in answer
any Judgment of that court.
Meantime, though the sevens aud Fights
have been enjoined by our court from ap-
pearing in the Georgia court, that court,
with full knowledge of the pending ques-
ton in our Supreme Court and of the in
junction upon the parties, has proceeded to
adiudge that the mortgage liens in Georgia
were extinguished by the execution Of the
order for sale, and that the judgments at
law are the only liens in Georgia. II such
shall turn out to be the true meaning OF our
court in ordering sale 'sub1ect to liens"
then only new wonder why such an order
was made will be added to the wonderful
vicissitudes of the protrscted longevity of
this case, JAMES B, CAMPBELL